Big Ten and other Conference Expansion

[Piney]

Did Colorado get sued for leaving for the PAC-12?

Did Nebraska get sued for leaving for the B1G?

Nope. There are specified amounts that teams must pay a conference if they leave it, and the amounts usually vary depending on whether it happens 1 year or 2 years from the announcement.

I think the only thing that has changed was after Colorado & Nebraska left the other teams had to pledge they were staying to get the TV contract they renegotiated (I recall them all having to sign something). And the kicker being if there is less than 10 teams in the conference that ESPN/Fox had the right to terminate that TV contract.

When Colorado & Nebraska left there wasn't really a threat to terminate their TV contracts, right? Heck, they had an increase to the TV monies, so no damages when Colorado & Nebrask left. BUT if Texas A&M left there would be a legit damage caused to the Conference IF ESPN/Fox terminated their TV contracts.

Then again... I'm no lawyer and too lazy to hunt through the internet to find proof in what I just said.

 

[BB73]

I think the only thing that has changed was after Colorado & Nebraska left the other teams had to pledge they were staying to get the TV contract they renegotiated (I recall them all having to sign something). And the kicker being if there is less than 10 teams in the conference that ESPN/Fox had the right to terminate that TV contract.

When Colorado & Nebraska left there wasn't really a threat to terminate their TV contracts, right? Heck, they had an increase to the TV monies, so no damages when Colorado & Nebrask left. BUT if Texas A&M left there would be a legit damage caused to the Conference IF ESPN/Fox terminated their TV contracts.

Then again... I'm no lawyer and too lazy to hunt through the internet to find proof in what I just said.

The Big XII did ask teams to sign a loyalty pledge last year (even before Colorado and Nebraska left), and I remember there being a report after they left that other teams had signed it, but I also remember hearing later that some teams hadn't really signed it. It seemed like a publicity ploy by Beebe to make it seem that the Conference was stable and that its members were committed to each other, but the universities themselves didn't want to sign it because of future liabilities. But that's just my impression of what had occurred, I don't know that it's factual.

I think some reporter needs to do some FOIA requests on the public universities in the BIG XII in order to see what, if any, 'conference loyalty' documents have been signed by members of the Big XII.

 

[LovelandBuckeye]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...1802.html?mod=WSJ_article_MoreIn_Life&Culture

Then there's the money, which is considerable. Texas's deal with ESPN, which is running the network, is worth about $11 million annually to the school. But two things about that.

At some point, such sums can only yield incremental gains in college football. There's only so much of a return Texas or any deep-pocketed school can reap on investing in a team of unpaid athletes. Texas's coach, Mack Brown, already makes $5 million. Its field already has a massive high-definition screen nicknamed the Godzillatron. Its stadium already seats over 100,000. And yet the Longhorns still went 5-7 last season, still played before empty seats and still don't appear to have a quarterback.

Second, in any case, it isn't possible to get on even financial footing with Texas. It's Texas. In 2009, according to government data, Texas accrued $143.6 million in athletics revenue. No. 2 Alabama was over $14 million behind. Texas A&M was at $71.9 million, or roughly half Texas's take. What's the additional $11 million in TV money going to do that the $70 million-plus revenue gap wasn't doing already?

[Stereotypical Japanese Voice] GODZIRRA!!!!! [/Stereotypical Japanese Voice]

 

[DaveyBoy]

so the Big12 will add teams before it dismisses aTm and anyone else leaving....simply a procedural matter

http://outkickthecoverage.com/how-espn-is-complicating-am-to-sec-deal.php

Interesting read.

This writer says that the ESPN contract with the Big-12 has a provision which states that the contract is voidable upon the number of B12 members institutions becoming less than ten (10). And so - ESPN has an "issue" if it agrees to welcome the Aggies into the SEC fold with the new TV deal the SEC will insist on....as in doing so ESPN would be actively working to void its other contract with the Big 12.

 

[Woody1968]

I think the only thing that has changed was after Colorado & Nebraska left the other teams had to pledge they were staying to get the TV contract they renegotiated (I recall them all having to sign something). And the kicker being if there is less than 10 teams in the conference that ESPN/Fox had the right to terminate that TV contract.

When Colorado & Nebraska left there wasn't really a threat to terminate their TV contracts, right? Heck, they had an increase to the TV monies, so no damages when Colorado & Nebrask left. BUT if Texas A&M left there would be a legit damage caused to the Conference IF ESPN/Fox terminated their TV contracts.

Then again... I'm no lawyer and too lazy to hunt through the internet to find proof in what I just said.

This is correct. If A&M leaves and ESPN cancels the contract, the Big XII would probably sue A&M and the SEC on that basis. Probably why there is no real effort to add teams to the conference, besides the fact that there really aren't any suitable candidates outside of Notre Dame.

 

[Gatorubet]

I think the only thing that has changed was after Colorado & Nebraska left the other teams had to pledge they were staying to get the TV contract they renegotiated (I recall them all having to sign something). And the kicker being if there is less than 10 teams in the conference that ESPN/Fox had the right to terminate that TV contract.

When Colorado & Nebraska left there wasn't really a threat to terminate their TV contracts, right? Heck, they had an increase to the TV monies, so no damages when Colorado & Nebrask left. BUT if Texas A&M left there would be a legit damage caused to the Conference IF ESPN/Fox terminated their TV contracts.

Correct Piney. The difference would be ESPN actively taking steps that would ensure the voiding of its other contract. I guess they can have a "pretend" deal where the conference realigns without any conversations with ESPN - and then after it all shifts they start talking about a new SEC deal..... But the real world probably insists that the SEC have a very good idea what any new deal might be before the new schools are added. That would entail negotiations with ESPN in advance. It is that problem - ESPN actively working to make a deal happen that would void the Big-12 TV deal - that would be a potential legal nightmare because of conflict of interest issues.

 

[kinch]

Correct Piney. The difference would be ESPN actively taking steps that would ensure the voiding of its other contract. I guess they can have a "pretend" deal where the conference realigns without any conversations with ESPN - and then after it all shifts they start talking about a new SEC deal..... But the real world probably insists that the SEC have a very good idea what any new deal might be before the new schools are added. That would entail negotiations with ESPN in advance. It is that problem - ESPN actively working to make a deal happen that would void the Big-12 TV deal - that would be a potential legal nightmare because of conflict of interest issues.

I'm not so sure I agree with you here. I am trying to think about it a bit more.

Conflict of interest is not necessarily a problem for a participant in a contract. They are not attorneys with a duty to another individual. If both parties understood the terms of the contract, it may be okay for ESPN to do what has been discussed.

This is interesting. I'll have to think on it later. But it is not nearly so cut and dry as has been discussed.

 

[Gatorubet]

I'm not so sure I agree with you here. I am trying to think about it a bit more.

Conflict of interest is not necessarily a problem for a participant in a contract. They are not attorneys with a duty to another individual. If both parties understood the terms of the contract, it may be okay for ESPN to do what has been discussed.

This is interesting. I'll have to think on it later. But it is not nearly so cut and dry as has been discussed.

Yeah. Absent a fiduciary duty, there is no independent "tortious interference with contract" tort in Louisiana. But I understand that for some reason everyone does not follow the Code Napoleon - so I defer to you on how that is handled in the common law world.

 

[Piney]

Correct Piney. The difference would be ESPN actively taking steps that would ensure the voiding of its other contract. I guess they can have a "pretend" deal where the conference realigns without any conversations with ESPN - and then after it all shifts they start talking about a new SEC deal..... But the real world probably insists that the SEC have a very good idea what any new deal might be before the new schools are added. That would entail negotiations with ESPN in advance. It is that problem - ESPN actively working to make a deal happen that would void the Big-12 TV deal - that would be a potential legal nightmare because of conflict of interest issues.

This is my big question with the SEC expanding. What does ESPN have to gain to help the SEC expand??? Currently they have the SEC tied into a now severly undervalued TV deal.

I can see the SEC's viewpoint that if they expand and can somewhat re-open their TV contract to get more money, I can see why they want to do this. But even then, ESPN would still have the leverage with a contract in hand and the look-ins are more to protect ESPN than help the SEC stay current in market-value. If so... the SEC signed a really smart deal. BUT, I just have my doubts they have that much freedom.

 

[Muck]

Dissapointed to hear Delany saying what he said on the previous page. If AtM goes, I would hope we would be all over OU, Okie State, Texas, & ND.

Remember the B1G doesn't 'officially' offer invitations....but if DeLoss Dodd called up Delaney and asked if there was room for UT they'd be a member before the the next sip of coffee.

Expansion is possible for the league even if they aren't 'actively' looking.

Remember that's essentially how Nebraska became a member last year.

My point is this - for every Texas brought into a league, there needs to be a Notre Dame to absorb the losses.

NC State? we may have a winner here.
they make sense geographically. are about equivalent (actually a little better) historically than South Carolina. Gets the SEC into a good size TV market. Improves basketball without overloading the top in football.

Keep in mind that NC State is tied to UNC (the NCST board of trustees is appointed by the UNC board of governors) and the Tarheels aren't ever going to the SEC.

The Wolfpack certainly is a better 'growth' option for the SEC but there is definitely red tape that would have to be overcome.

Eleven of the 12 Southeastern Conference presidents will meet Sunday at a secret location to discuss the admission of Texas A&M to the league

Security was air tight.

 

[BB73]

Ex-NCAA President Cedric Dempsey says that in 4 to 5 years there will be a handful of super-conferences, and that they will either split away from the FBS or split from the NCAA entirely.

Birmingham.News

SEC hits the expansion pause button -- for now

No one wants to pay alimony. Much has been learned since the ACC's haphazard raid of the Big East in 2003 got the ACC sued, resulting in a settlement that The Hartford Courant valued at $5 million. Imagine what Big 12 members could get with the SEC and ESPN involved if they could prove contracts were breached.

ESPN's control of college sports has reached this dizzying equation: ESPN started a network with Texas that directly or indirectly attempted to rewrite NCAA recruiting rules, which could lead to Texas A&M's departure, which could damage the Big 12's deals with Fox and ESPN, which could improve the SEC's deal with ESPN. That's power or chutzpah, or perhaps both.
...

Dempsey's like me. He believes talk of giving conferences the choice to provide full cost-of-attendance scholarships and multi-year scholarships to athletes is a preview of the eventual move to four super conferences.

"There's no doubt we're looking in the next three, four or five years -- at most -- of seeing conferences from 14 to 18 members," said Dempsey, the NCAA president from 1993 to 2002. "The handwriting is on the wall."

Texas Athletics Director DeLoss Dodds has even publicly discussed what once seemed like a radical future. There's a YouTube video now making the rounds of Dodds saying Texas has had "a lot of conversations" with Notre Dame about building "something that's national, maybe more than 20 teams" and creating conferences among those peers.

Dempsey suspects either another NCAA division with some different rules will be created for those with money, or -- less likely -- some of those schools might pull out of the NCAA.

Cont'd ...

 

[Diego-Bucks]

Ex-NCAA President Cedric Dempsey says that in 4 to 5 years there will be a handful of super-conferences, and that they will either split away from the FBS or split from the NCAA entirely.

Birmingham.News

Dodds must be delusional if he thinks Texas and Notre Dame can just create a 20-team national conference that's worth a damn. Big Ten is stable, SEC is stable, Pac-12 is stable. ACC is a wild card of course. But seriously, 20-teams and that's it in terms of national competition? Why would any prestigious, currently conference-affiliated program want to be in a 20-team power conference nationally?

If the conference is worth a damn, then it probably will have more depth than the SEC and be too daunting for most programs to consider and I doubt they could persuade a lot of non-UT centered programs (e.g. Oklahoma, Texas Tech etc.) to join. If UT and Notre Dame want to go out together, they could bring Oklahoma along I suppose... I just wonder how long some of those programs will just allow UT to pull them by the leash.

What does he envision a conference of: USC, UCLA, Stanford, Berkeley, Oklahoma, Texas, OK State, TAMU, Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, Nebraska, Florida, Florida State, Alabama, Georgia, UNC, Notre Dame, LSU, Auburn?

Why good does that do in the long run? 20 years of that conference and many of the currently great programs would be lucky to have a .500 record. Loss of fans, loss of interest, desire to return to the days of yesteryear when Florida State could win 10 games instead of lose 8 games. Net loss for collegiate athletics.

 

[jlb1705]

Dodds must be delusional if he thinks Texas and Notre Dame can just create a 20-team national conference that's worth a damn.

I reckon they can find a way to get to twenty members just with the kind of schools they've been playing against for years...

1. Texas
2. Notre Dame
3. Army
4. Navy
5. Air Force
6. Coast Guard Academy
7. Merchant Marine Academy
8. Texas Tech
9. Texas A&M
10. Baylor
11. North Texas
12. UT-San Antonio
13. UTEP
14. Houston
15. Rice
16. TCU
17. SMU
18. Abilene Christian
19. Prairie View A&M
20. Oklahoma

 

[LovelandBuckeye]

I reckon they can find a way to get to twenty members just with the kind of schools they've been playing against for years...

1. Texas
2. Notre Dame
3. Army
4. Navy
5. Air Force
6. Coast Guard Academy
7. Merchant Marine Academy
8. Texas Tech
9. Texas A&M
10. Baylor
11. North Texas
12. UT-San Antonio
13. UTEP
14. Houston
15. Rice
16. TCU
17. SMU
18. Abilene Christian
19. Prairie View A&M
20. Oklahoma

I was laughing inside until I got to #20. Then I LOL'd!!!

 

[AuTX Buckeye]

I reckon they can find a way to get to twenty members just with the kind of schools they've been playing against for years...

1. Texas
2. Notre Dame
3. Army
4. Navy
5. Air Force
6. Coast Guard Academy
7. Merchant Marine Academy
8. Texas Tech
9. Texas A&M
10. Baylor
11. North Texas
12. UT-San Antonio
13. UTEP
14. Houston
15. Rice
16. TCU
17. SMU
18. Abilene Christian
19. Prairie View A&M
20. Oklahoma

Dont forget new WAC member in 2012 - Texas State.