Could It Help Big 12 and Pac-12 to Negotiate Media Rights as Consortium

Paid it immediately? How is that possible?

Are you saying they would have immediately paid their $80mm exit fees, joined the SEC, and further foregone all tier 1 and 2 SEC media revenue through June of 2025?

I don't think a $50mm(?) Covid loss caused them to re-think handing over ~$200mm or more each to the B12. I'm pretty sure the idea of giving the B12 $80mm for the opportunity to get ZERO tier1&2 media revenue for the next 3 years was enough in and of itself to prevent a move to the SEC in 2022.

Of course what OU/UT might have done isn't really the same calculus as Clemson or Miami. They'd be looking at getting ZERO media revenue for 15 years. They are not leaving the ACC.

The ACC is a distant dead last in optimization opportunities for the B12.

GumbyFromPokeyLand said:

---

Paid it immediately? How is that possible?

Are you saying they would have immediately paid their $80mm exit fees, joined the SEC, and further foregone all tier 1 and 2 SEC media revenue through June of 2025?

I don't think a $50mm(?) Covid loss caused them to re-think handing over ~$200mm or more each to the B12.

Of course what OU/UT might have done isn't really the same calculus as Clemson or Miami. They'd be looking at getting ZERO media revenue for 15 years. They are not leaving the ACC.

The ACC is a distant dead last in optimization opportunities for the B12.

---

you can keep your mind closed, it does not bother me one bit.

ANYTHING can happen.

The B12 could accept a boat load of ACC teams voiding that conference entirely. No conference - no GOR. (or visa versa). NIL might make the whole college football landscape meaningless. The B12 could vote to grant shares to some ACC teams to come over, to make up for their loss of home revenues and other GOR monies, etc. Those teams might lose a little up front, but would pay off big time over the next decade (2036)

Lots of things could happen.

But, aligning contracts with the Pac 12 doesn't have any tangible benefits that I can see.... so all we are left with is standing pat, or working on other more profitable deals.

I'll bet you right now that the ACC contract does not stay in place until 2036.

I believe if the B12 were to grant "shares" to ACC teams to join, those shares go to the ACC under the GOR agreement.

I don't know if a PAC media alliance could happen, or even be workable in the final analysis, but in the end, it would be foolish for the B12 to ignore a potential PAC alliance while chasing an alliance with the ACC that by any reasonable measure would be near impossible. And of course there's no way you could negotiate both simultaneously.

my only point ever, was mentioning to Robert that "WE", the collective B12 fans, don't like the Pac or anything associated with the Pac.

CaliforniaCowboy said:

---

GumbyFromPokeyLand said:

---

Here's what's interesting.

ACC schools are bound by a GOR agreement just like B12 schools. How's that working out for OU and UT? You think the B12 should just forget the GOR agreement? Exit fees?

Nobody is leaving the ACC anytime soon. And ESPN isn't going to renegotiate their "cheapest" P5 football content.

Discussion is fine, but at some point people just have to acknowledge economic and legal reality.

---

In my opinion, OU and Texas would have paid the GOR immediately if not for the event happening at the same time as a pandemic, with budget cuts and unknown futures. You cannot prove that they wouldn't just pay them right now if the games were not scheduled so far in advance. At this point, the wheels are set in motion and there is no urgent need for them to leave early, which is not to say that they still won't leave early and pay whatever remains of their GOR penalty.

Teams leave conferences all the time. We have teams joining the B12 that got out of their deals.

Sure there are some hurdles to overcome, but the possibility of meeting (paying) the economic and legal realities happens all the time. In coaches contracts. In conferences. In MLB lockouts. The teams of the ACC are not bound by your opinion of what their options are.

---

Well Texas would love to buy out, but they can't without OU, and they won't pay for OU. OU is in a financial mess and they've mortgaged the AD to deal with shortfalls on the academic side. They can't pay any buyout.

With the ACC schools none of them could afford a buyout. And it will be 10 to 12 years before they could.

NJAggie said:

---

With the ACC schools none of them could afford a buyout. And it will be 10 to 12 years before they could.

---

do you have any numbers for that, or just guessing? and by "buyout", are you talking about Conf exit fees, or the GOR revenue, they are different things.

CaliforniaCowboy said:

---

GumbyFromPokeyLand said:

---

Paid it immediately? How is that possible?

Are you saying they would have immediately paid their $80mm exit fees, joined the SEC, and further foregone all tier 1 and 2 SEC media revenue through June of 2025?

I don't think a $50mm(?) Covid loss caused them to re-think handing over ~$200mm or more each to the B12.

Of course what OU/UT might have done isn't really the same calculus as Clemson or Miami. They'd be looking at getting ZERO media revenue for 15 years. They are not leaving the ACC.

The ACC is a distant dead last in optimization opportunities for the B12.

---

you can keep your mind closed, it does not bother me one bit.

ANYTHING can happen.

The B12 could accept a boat load of ACC teams voiding that conference entirely. No conference - no GOR. (or visa versa). NIL might make the whole college football landscape meaningless. The B12 could vote to grant shares to some ACC teams to come over, to make up for their loss of home revenues and other GOR monies, etc. Those teams might lose a little up front, but would pay off big time over the next decade (2036)

Lots of things could happen.

But, aligning contracts with the Pac 12 doesn't have any tangible benefits that I can see.... so all we are left with is standing pat, or working on other more profitable deals.

I'll bet you right now that the ACC contract does not stay in place until 2036.

---

The GOR is not just an agreement with the conference it is also with the networks so you have to pay off both partners. They are a well tested legal practice and no one has broken one. Prince sort of side stepped one for a while, but not sure how successful it was financially.

The chances of the ACC voiding or sidestepping their obligation to ESPN are fairly slim. As I said their only real hope is for schools to be forced down in level so that the ESPN is destroyed by an outside entity. That might be a voidable situation, but I doubt you can vote to end the conference and escape the GoR. ESPN doesn't care where you go to play your games, they just want to have the home field broadcast rights to those games.

Maybe they'd take a payment equal to their payout for each year so you could join someone else, get paid by them a larger fee and turn most of it over to ESPN? As you said anything is possible, but I don't see many options that don't continue to cripple the ACC.

The one way out is total collapse of the college based football, where the NFL comes in and buys some names and runs their own developmental leagues. Which is what i think should happen. Then if we get to go back to kids on campus playing football for our schools for some scholarship money and a few meals and beers from the locals and we all go back to small local conferences then I can see the ACC being release from their servitude to ESPN and I'll be quite happy to watch us on FB and pull for our boys each and every week.

NJAggie said:

---

The GOR is not just an agreement with the conference it is also with the networks so you have to pay off both partners. They are a well tested legal practice and no one has broken one. Prince sort of side stepped one for a while, but not sure how successful it was financially.

---

Which conference was Prince in?

I'm not talking about "breaking a GOR", but there are ways to financially navigate around one, if another conference wants it badly enough, and the team will cough up some exit bucks and accept less for a short time.

The GOR is exactly that... granting of broadcast rights, nothing more. The ACC teams essentially gave up their rights to home TV revenue. Those teams do not owe ESPN. That is all that each team would need to replace the lost TV revenue, I believe, except for a conf. exit fee.

ESPN does not pay the teams for games under the GOR, and the teams do not pay or owe ESPN. The conference gets the ESPN money, and hands it out according to their conference agreements with the teams. (so, if for example, Miami joined the B12, then those broadcast rights (dollars) for the Miami home games would go to the ACC).

There are reasons why ESPN might want to renegotiate the ACC TV contract (like expansion).

Also, the GOR ceases to exist if the ACC folds. This approach was discussed with the B12, but the remaining teams voted to remain together and to stiff ou and ut, because the SEC did not invite enough teams to squash such a vote. If a conference (like the B12) were to take 6 or 8 teams from the ACC, then there may not be enough teams remaining to keep the ACC afloat).

CaliforniaCowboy said:

---

my only point ever, was mentioning to Robert that "WE", the collective B12 fans, don't like the Pac or anything associated with the Pac.

---

Okay, you don't like the PAC. That does not apply to all, or even most B12 fans. Regardless whether you like the PAC or not, a media alliance doesn't require you get married, you just get paid by the same guy. SMH.

GumbyFromPokeyLand said:

---

CaliforniaCowboy said:

---

my only point ever, was mentioning to Robert that "WE", the collective B12 fans, don't like the Pac or anything associated with the Pac.

---

Okay, you don't like the PAC. That does not apply to all, or even most B12 fans. Regardless whether you like the PAC or not, a media alliance doesn't require you get married, you just get paid by the same guy. SMH.

---

dude what is your problem.... I addressed this in the very first post, before you started your crap again.

I said BASED ON...... go back and read it.

all you want to do is fight with people..... I said what I said, why do you feel the need to comment on it at all?

Your wrong here, you're always wrong.

What on Gods earth are you talking about?

Your first post:

"Screw the 12Pac, Robert, they would not add a red cent to our conference bottom line.

why let them drag us down too?

If you're going in that direction why not pair up with the ACC? that makes much more sense."

This convo/argument been going for 5 days lol

Yep, funny ain't it, when someone has no idea what they're actually arguing about.

Yeah I know exactly what you mean lol

Polston31 said:

---

This convo/argument been going for 5 days lol

---

do you see anything else to talk about? At least this thread is active.

BB team sucks. (although I was watching DePaul/Marquette last night and Yor Anei came in for DePaul.

Football is in a rebuilding year, with green backups most positions.

I post about Golf - no comments

72 posts about some Ladies sports - no comments

conversation is actually good for the board, whether you agree with all of the posts being made, or not.

nothing wrong with long threads, so long as the don't get personal or nasty.

GumbyFromPokeyLand said:

---

What on Gods earth are you talking about?

Your first post:

"Screw the 12Pac, Robert, they would not add a red cent to our conference bottom line.

why let them drag us down too?

If you're going in that direction why not pair up with the ACC? that makes much more sense."

---

good golly, my apology....

I actually gave the basis for my position a few posts later than that in response to Robert.... but you should have known, I had qualified that statement previously.

Quote:

---

Robert Allen said:


3. Contracts can be broken, but the ACC is in a bad deal and ESPN is not going to let them out of it unless there is something in it for the world wide leader. The Longhorn Network deal has advantages to both parties to getting out of it.

---

other than reminding that based on past scenarios most of the Big12 fans are not in favor of anything to do with the Pac12. (in reference to past expansion discussions where the Pac was mentioned)

I agree 100 percent the thread being active is good. An argument that just flip flops for 5 days is not as cool as real conversation. It's like the comment section is for people to fight about stuff over. It's more fun when people respect each other's opinions whether they agree or not and it opens up new conversation about sports. It's more of a you are wrong no you are wrong no I'm not wrong yes you are wrong thing here. At some point it would end I would think. A long healthy conversation is good a long repetitive argument is not good.

Thats also why I asked on here if anyone knew how to turn off the little blue notification. It's kinda exciting to see it like cool a conversation to join but no it's just the same argument for the last week. I'd rather just not see it

CaliforniaCowboy said:

---

NJAggie said:

---

With the ACC schools none of them could afford a buyout. And it will be 10 to 12 years before they could.

---

do you have any numbers for that, or just guessing? and by "buyout", are you talking about Conf exit fees, or the GOR revenue, they are different things.

---

I'm actually thinking of both. The ACC has a $50M exit fee, that they took UMd to court and made them pay. UMd had not signed the GoR so they were not subject to any additional buy out.

The GoR is easily estimated as the value of the per school payout for each year bought, which would mean something in excess of $420M this year. They might get some discounting on that but I don't see that as being enough to make it payable.

When we get to say 2032 then maybe a UNC could explore it.

ND would be subject to the $50M, and their annual payout from the league is about half everyone else's as they only have 3 football games and basketball producing any revenue. So say their GoR buyout would be $210M.

And again ESPN would be enforcing the GoR not the conference. With their help to say move to the SEC would be the only way that move happens, and then ESPN would be open to suits by the other schools. So they probably wouldn't help out.

NJAggie said:

---

And again ESPN would be enforcing the GoR not the conference.

---

Is this a correct statement?

The teams grant their rights to the conference, not to ESPN. The conference then negotiates with ESPN on behalf of the league whose media rights they have secured under contract.

I don't believe that ESPN enforces anything, they simply broadcasts the games and then pays the conference who holds the media rights for that/those games.

The GOR is not due upon exit from the conference, it is collected annually, and would be "withheld" annually, not actually paid by the team to the conference, but rather withheld from the team by the conference.

These are important points when trying to determine whether a team (or conference) could benefit by moving.

(example: Miami could agree to move to the B12, prior to the new contract so that the Big12 would make more for the ESPN deal, a part of which they would/could kick-back to Miami to make up for their lost ACC TV revenue. The amount that the B12 gives to Miami could be more than what they would get from the ACC. So, Miami pays their exit fee, gets out of the ACC and potentially makes more TV money than they would have by staying in the ACC.)

Sure, this is a slanted example to demonstrate a point, but the concept would work something like that (plug in your own media dollar values).

Miami losing the $17Mil/yr from the ACC is almost chump change compared to where the contracts are going these days.

CaliforniaCowboy said:

---

NJAggie said:

---

And again ESPN would be enforcing the GoR not the conference.

---

Is this a correct statement?

The teams grant their rights to the conference, not to ESPN. The conference then negotiates with ESPN on behalf of the league whose media rights they have secured under contract.

I don't believe that ESPN enforces anything, they simply broadcasts the games and then pays the conference who holds the media rights for that/those games.

The GOR is not due upon exit from the conference, it is collected annually, and would be "withheld" annually, not actually paid by the team to the conference, but rather withheld from the team by the conference.

These are important points when trying to determine whether a team (or conference) could benefit by moving.

(example: Miami could agree to move to the B12, prior to the new contract so that the Big12 would make more for the ESPN deal, a part of which they would/could kick-back to Miami to make up for their lost ACC TV revenue. The amount that the B12 gives to Miami could be more than what they would get from the ACC. So, Miami pays their exit fee, gets out of the ACC and potentially makes more TV money than they would have by staying in the ACC.)

Sure, this is a slanted example to demonstrate a point, but the concept would work something like that (plug in your own media dollar values).

Miami losing the $17Mil/yr from the ACC is almost chump change compared to where the contracts are going these days.

---

You're right about what usually is the case with the conference owning the rights, but the Conference was so desirous of the length of contract they sold all their rights to ESPN. So ESPN not the conference is the rights holder, and would be the one enforcing it.

Letting some one pay off their GoR by the year would be an extreme act of benevolence by the holder. The Grants have been given until 2036 and would need to be paid for in total to exit the agreement.

NJAggie said:

---

You're right about what usually is the case with the conference owning the rights, but the Conference was so desirous of the length of contract they sold all their rights to ESPN. So ESPN not the conference is the rights holder, and would be the one enforcing it.

Letting some one pay off their GoR by the year would be an extreme act of benevolence by the holder. The Grants have been given until 2036 and would need to be paid for in total to exit the agreement.

---

I can't find any articles about ESPN own GOR for any team.

Here is what I could find... and it says the ACC holds the GOR (i.e., collects the ESPN money)

the Atlantic Coast Conference and ESPN agreeing to a 20-year deal and rights extension through the 2035-36 academic year in an announcement made Thursday.
The ACC also extended its conference rights deal nine years through 2035-36.
The conference's grant of rights makes it financially untenable for a school to leave, guaranteeing in the 20 years of the deal that a school's media rights, including revenue, for all home games would remain with the ACC regardless of the school's affiliation.

https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/17102933/acc-espn-agree-20-year-rights-deal-lead-2019-launch-acc-network


We have a few years to go, and hopefully the B12 adds some more teams prior to signing a new contract.... these conversations are interesting, but frankly we don't even know if any of this will even exist in 10 or even 5 years.

The NCAA could collapse, the teams/leagues could split into the haves and have-nots, everything seems to be fluid at the moment.

What is certain at this point, the ACC has a crap contract that they will almost certainly renegotiate, and with the SEC expansion and the B1G/ACC/Pac alliance - the B12 is is on the outside looking in.

……certainly won't be able to renegotiate a new contract baring a titanic shift in the landscape of college football.

GumbyFromPokeyLand said:

---

……certainly won't be able to renegotiate a new contract baring a titanic shift in the landscape of college football.

---

you don't know that... you just continue to throw crap at the wall hoping something sticks.

Clearly we need to see what the Pac and B12 contracts look like before any definitive comments can be made about any other contracts....

show me that list of teams that have gotten out of their deals, it's a long list, supposedly iron-clad deals.... then they created the GOR, but that has not yet been tested .... we shall see what we shall see, but one thing remains certain, you are always wrong.

Day 6

I'm truly glad you think it - " is certain at this point, the ACC has a crap contract that they will almost certainly renegotiate,"

Many people aspire to be the singular person to achieve something in this world. Congrats, you've achieved it.

Well the contract has points where ESPN is supposed to review the contract and determine if they think it should be increased. To date ESPN has yet to find the ACC to be worth more then they are obligated to pay them.

Most ACC games are only streamed on the ESPN app.

They had some really bad, and some say greedy AD's, that had set up a terrible deal with Raycom, who when they saw they were being lapped by other conferences and were losing members decided to end it by selling everything they owned, and getting Raycom to sell everything they owned, and it could be Raycom is still getting some money off of their sell of the GoR's they held to ESPN. There are some rumors that this was good for the pocketbooks of Swofford and key AD's. But ESPN didn't stop their they through in all their tier 3 product and the ACC tournament.

Some may not believe ESPN controls them, but that is the reality. A school leaving the ACC would have to pay a lot of money and probably have to move to a conference that has no ESPN deals. Not to mention deep pockets to pay off all the lawsuits from the ACC and members. But yeah there's no way a contract is going to hold them.

GumbyFromPokeyLand said:

---

I'm truly glad you think it - " is certain at this point, the ACC has a crap contract that they will almost certainly renegotiate,"

Many people aspire to be the singular person to achieve something in this world. Congrats, you've achieved it.

---

why are you turning this topic about me... once again.

can't you ever be civil and hold a civil discussion without getting mad about feeling like you're losing and then making it personal about the other person? Discussions are not about winning or losing. This is not a debate.

why do you drag out threads for 6 days only to start bashing others?

Gumby kills yet another active thread with his personal attacks.

NJAggie said:

---

Some may not believe ESPN controls them, but that is the reality. A school leaving the ACC would have to pay a lot of money and probably have to move to a conference that has no ESPN deals. Not to mention deep pockets to pay off all the lawsuits from the ACC and members. But yeah there's no way a contract is going to hold them.

---

almost all lawsuits brought to date by Neb, Maryland, etc. have resulted in reduced school liability and those teams leaving.

ESPN does not want any long drawnout lawsuites. that has not been the history, at least.

Day 7

On the 7th day, the Lord rested!

AustinCowboy88 said:

---

On the 7th day, the Lord rested!

---

do you have anything to add to the thread topic or not?

Yeah I do. Day 8