Early exit for Texas, Oklahoma to SEC could be aided by future nonconference games at Big 12 stadiums
The Longhorns and Sooners hope to join the SEC in 2024, a year before presently scheduled
www.cbssports.com
OU and UT discussions ongoing
- Thread starter Buckaineer
- Start date
www.cbssports.com
Interesting tidbit about the new tv deal right now:
The Big 12's new media rights deal, announced in late October, will guarantee league schools an all-in average figure of at least $48 million (including bowl revenue and NCAA Tournamentmonies), sources indicated. That is approximately $5 million more than conference members are presently earning with Texas and Oklahoma. The new deal starts in 2025.
The Big 12's new media rights deal, announced in late October, will guarantee league schools an all-in average figure of at least $48 million (including bowl revenue and NCAA Tournamentmonies), sources indicated. That is approximately $5 million more than conference members are presently earning with Texas and Oklahoma. The new deal starts in 2025.
So, Oklahoma and Texas would guarantee a slew of non-conference against Big 12 teams in a swap for a year-early exit. Maybe they saw that new Big 12 TV deal, AFTER Oklahoma and Texas leave, will bring Big 12 members who remain or join $5 million a year more than current deal with Sooners and Longhorns in the conference.
Says the moron who starts off with “Buckles.” Can I post without you or you alter ego trolling and derailing? If you act like a child you get treated as one idiot.
Again this has likely been going on since the announcement that they were leaving. Our Commish is playing it smart. We have a huge bargaining chip in the short term and are trying to leverage a larger chip in the long run (a ticket out of the NCAA and a written agreement to leave the B12 alone from here on).
The Big 12 is also useful as a tag team partner in dusting the PAC 12 and eventually the ACC. The longer this drags on the better it is for us.
The Big 12 is also useful as a tag team partner in dusting the PAC 12 and eventually the ACC. The longer this drags on the better it is for us.
Basically the same article and no there were no updates other than a different writer.
Why do you think they were allowed 5 million more? ESPN wants Sooners and Longhorns in SEC as soon as possible.
Given how Texas and Oklahoma blinded the Big 12 by leaving - why would you trust either one on scheduling games (they could always be cancelled) and further don't get the TV folks anywhere near negotiating the early departure (the TV guys are the ones that talked the two schools into leaving he Big 12) take the cash -Early exit for Texas, Oklahoma to SEC could be aided by future nonconference games at Big 12 stadiums
The Longhorns and Sooners hope to join the SEC in 2024, a year before presently scheduled
Agree on trust- can’t exist now. Also from the article I don’t see how BIG 12 schools are then compensated. The networks get something but what do BIG 12 schools get— they are owed an enormous amount of money - $80 plus million each just for departure fees before you even get to the grant of rights money- plus damages for injuring the conferences image.
Fox might be ok with guaranteed big games for their side of the BIG 12 rights, but why should existing or new members give up more exposure to Texas and OU instead of building their own brand going forward?
The conference would have to be made whole by the SEC and ESPN— not sure how a few games with schools you don’t really care to play who can back out any time does that— it just benefits the SEC and ESPN.
That buyout is literally peanuts versus a written truce, designated teams from the PAC 12 and ACC, and a ticket out of this disaster the NCAA has painted themselves into.
We'll let the players unionize in exchange for a pay scale which 90% of the rank and file players will love since 10% of the players probably get 90% of the NIL money and they can get health insurance that way. The 10%? Go to the NFL and get your million dollar contracts there. Then we can instal a cap as well. It would actually create a little more parity and God forbid real competition which has been missing for a decade or so.
The only games they would schedule is OU vs OSU due to the state of Oklahoma would force it on them (see UVA & VPI history). Texas on the other hand would agree to play Kansas annually and pick and choose weaker schools like NotreDame does with the ACC.
Possibly Texas would agree to play Texas Tech. It is Texas Tech big event.
Ok. I obviously need to slow this down for you.
Is $80 million a lot of money? Sure but that is also divided amongst a bunch of schools. Is say a single payment of $8 million dollars going to change the trajectory of our football program? No f#$king way. Some dumbass at WVU would throw it at some infrastructure that will be obsolete in 8 years. Gone. Poof.
On the other hand...parlaying our position into a ticket out of the NCAA with a binding agreement to no longer interfere with existing and future Big 12 members would likely double our current revenue. Read this articl. If we took just the money from the NCAA tournament and a 12 team CFP and divided that amount between 60 team equally (likely will be less teams than that), each team would make over $24 million dollars per team. That is ignoring any revenue for regular season games in basketball or football, which will be much more than that.
Would $60-80 million guaranteed per team be off the table? Hell no. Instead of networks pitting one conference against another, we would have the power of controlling access to ALL the high demand content. Every. Last. Second. .
When you are done using your fingers and toes to keep up with this pesky math ****, answer the real question....
would making an extra 20-30 million dollars every single f#&king year change WVU's trajectory?
So your solution to to grab the fast bag and make up for short term stupid decisions instead of ensuring the long term future for not only the athletic dept but also for WVU in general?
Don't go full retard.
I'm not sure what it worse. Is it this completely incoherent assault on the English language or that you went back and edited this pile of word vomit, the somehow sat back and said:
"Ya dun nice der mofo. This looks way gooder."
Seriously. Did you literally just mush your own **** onto your already Crisco saturated keyboard the first time? Because that is the only way your first "draft" could have been worse than this tripe.
This isn't even rhetorical. I want an answer.
Some folks don't have an answer so they spew forth meaningless word salad.
Parallelogram.
To leave early, Texas and Oklahoma will likely have to:
- Negotiate a buyout. Current estimates have placed the current exit fee for each school at a significant $84 million to as much as $90 million, based on Big 12 bylaws. In other recent cases, schools and their former conferences have reached agreement for less than required amount. How motivated is the Big 12?
- Find a way for the Big 12 not to lose money in the process. Texas and Oklahoma leaving a year early would impact the current TV contract with ESPN and Fox. Even with BYU, Central Florida, Cincinnati and Houston coming on board as members in 2023-24, the Big 12 could take a short-term hit. The pending media extension with ESPN and Fox from 2025-2031 would not be impacted by any Texas or OU early move.
- Make Fox whole. This is the big one. For now, Fox has the right to Oklahoma and Texas through 2025, including the Red River Showdown. If Fox were to give up those rights in 2024 – which would put Texas and OU on the ESPN broadcasts of the SEC – what’s the offset?
Doesn't matter what - Fox Sports,
ESPN, SEC nor Texas/Oklahoma
(or this msg board) thinks.
It's a contract.
Pay up
But appreciate the summary.
"Short Term Hit" - glad you all are not my legal team.
I realize that you're
"self anointed legal expert"
for West Virginia (or myself personally),
but BUT I'm thrilled
you are Not on mine nor West Virginia, b12 - legal negotiator team.
Type on
All contracts are negotiable. You don't have to be a legal expert to know this.
The standard “grant of rights” contracts also include a laundry list of other rights, but those are generally negotiable to one degree or another.
Mark Wilhelm:
4 ways to challenge a deal
The first would be for the school to simply leave the conference and leave its rights behind. This is likely a non-starter because without its rights, that school is of considerably less value to another league. The new league wouldn’t be allowed to sell that school’s rights to a network, which likely would put an end to any potential marriage.
The second option is for the school to sue to try to get the rights back. This also would be exceptionally risky. “That’s going to be incredibly expensive,” Wilhelm said, “and there is not a lot of certainty that a school is going to win.”
If a school was willing to take the risk, it might claim the grant of rights isn’t a valid contract. That may sound silly. You can read three such contracts here. But it’s more complicated than that.
ACC Grant of Rights
Big 12 Grant of Rights
Pac-12 Grant of Rights
For something to be a contract, it must have three components: an offer, an acceptance and consideration. If I walk into a store and buy a pack of gum, my receipt is a valid contract. The store has offered me gum at a specific price. I have accepted those terms. I have given the store that amount of money, and the store has given me the pack of gum.
In the grant of rights, the school has given the conference something of value — its media rights. But what has the conference given the school? It’s not the money for those media rights. That comes from one or several networks based on the terms of the conference’s deal with the network(s). The school’s attorneys could argue that an entirely separate contract covers that consideration.
Meanwhile, the attorneys for the conference and the remaining schools could argue that the consideration the school received was stability in an unstable time.
Any school challenging any of the grant of rights deals would have to figure out where to sue. This goes back to the brevity of the contracts themselves. “There’s nothing inherently wrong with that,” he said. “That doesn’t mean it’s a bad contract or that it’s unenforceable or anything like that. But what you have is a situation where you’re tying up potentially billions of dollars of rights in three or four pages. That leaves a lot of questions about what everybody was agreeing to at the time.”
See why even Oklahoma and Texas — with all their fancy lawyers — haven’t challenged the Big 12’s grant of rights? It’s a lot of (expensive) work with no guarantee of success and a steep price for failure. Of course, if the schools could get the cases tried in their states, they might have a better chance of winning. This is especially true if they have friends in the state legislature who can help adjust the state’s contract laws. But again, that is no guarantee.
A much less risky (but probably still expensive) option is to try to negotiate a deal with the conference and the remaining members for an exit fee that is less than the full amount that would be forfeited. That exit fee would allow a school to leave with its rights intact.
The Sooners and Longhorns could offer a payment that would allow the remaining Big 12 members to receive either an equal amount or more than they would have received had Oklahoma and Texas stayed until 2025, then it would seem reasonable that the other schools would let them leave with their rights. (Unless they really want to be spiteful, which is their right.)
The fourth option? Hope the league dissolves and the grant of rights dissolves with it. In the ACC, that would require the majority of the members to want to leave. That seems unlikely. But what about the Big 12 and Oklahoma and Texas? The Pac-12 could respond to the loss of USC and UCLA by trying to scoop up Big 12 members. The leagues could merge and form an entirely new entity. If that happened, the Sooners and Longhorns could be free to go.
Sir -
Hate to break this to you
"King og Msg Board", of sorts.
But bantering back & forth
(Back & Forth - back and forth)
on a Rivals Msg Board, is Not going
to make b12 & b12 Partners to forgo any ~~$15 - $20 million payouts penalties
to remaining b12 schools, Each (estimated).
B12 legal team isn't as Stupid, as maybe Rivals msg board participants.
I'm sure you'll need the last word.
Steven Covey never taught Lose Lose
You seem injured.
"We" didn't move you off your so called
" msg board perch",
for the holiday season.
Just can't be true.
Parable
If Oklahoma & Texas wants to leave b12 early, they can pay more re$titution
penalties $$$, per Steven Covey.
Back to subject at hand.
Last edited:
Number 4 is hysterical. That pitch would sound like that Prestige Worldwide Presentation from Step Brothers.
If you all wish to negotiate on behalf of Oklahoma & Texas,
then "we" probably do NOT recommend
Negotiating via
other b12 Partners websites
(West Virginia, in this example).
No way b12 - no "Fuking Way" b12 as a corporation
will Void ~~$15 - $20 million,
per partner.
Good luck
then "we" probably do NOT recommend
Negotiating via
other b12 Partners websites
(West Virginia, in this example).
No way b12 - no "Fuking Way" b12 as a corporation
will Void ~~$15 - $20 million,
per partner.
Good luck