... or is it really between the two conferences?

For example, imagine if Kansas decides to join the B1G. Let's also stipulate that Kansas will get the same media money from the B1G as it is getting from the Big 12, so it is leaving the Big 12 for other reasons.

In this scenario, is it really necessary for Kansas to "break" the GOR with the Big 12? Kansas could sit back and let the Big 12 broadcast its home games, all of them, even those with other B1G teams, as in accordance with its Big 12 GOR agreement.

And the Big 12 (and its broadcasting partners) doesn't necessarily have to have a problem with this either: They continue to televise all Kansas home games, it's just that those games are no longer Big 12 games and don't involve Big 12 teams. Instead of home games like Kansas vs Texas Tech they are broadcasting Kansas vs Michigan. But those games are still just as valuable to advertisers. So the Big 12 continues to pay Kansas its share of its media money, which, since it is the same as the B1G media money, is fine with Kansas too.

So who would have a problem with this scenario? Not Kansas or the Big 12, it would be the B1G. Because the B1G would not have the rights to B1G games that involve Kansas playing at home. That is, if Kansas is part of the B1G media deal, then Michigan at Kansas is owned by the B1G and its media partners. But if Kansas's media rights are still owned by the Big 12, then Michigan at Kansas is owned by the Big 12 and the B1G loses out on that game. It also doesn't get the rights to Kansas's home games versus out-of-conference competition.

So while GOR disputes are framed as involving a fundamental dispute between the exiting team and its conference, it's really the NEW conference that has the fundamental imperative to break that existing GOR, so they can claim their new team's media rights, which presumably was a reason they wanted that school to join.

Of course, the way the B1G would protect itself is by not allowing this scenario to develop: Before Kansas is allowed into the B1G, the B1G will make it clear to Kansas that it will have to somehow get out of its media deal with the Big 12.

This fact sets the B1G up as a potential target of a Big 12 lawsuit, for tortuous interference. It would be difficult for the B1G to claim that Kansas was suing of its own volition to get out of its Big 12 GOR when it would be obvious that the B1G was the driving force behind such an action.

what if KU just did all their B1G "home" games at Arrowhead?

If you only had a year or two left in the GOR, you could muddle through

The problem is that the whole point of the moves is mostly television dollars and the new conferences aren't going to be getting more without the home games. Further looking at the agreements, you don't actually get television money unless you are in the conference so if say Texas left for the Big Ten (just random choice), then the Big 12 would control all Texas home games TV rights and it would not be paying Texas Big 12 TV money as they are no longer in the conference.

Some of this might be able to be fought, but the fundamental point that the old conference keeps the media rights isn't going to change making any moves difficult until the agreements near completion.

(02-13-2014 04:50 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  The problem is that the whole point of the moves is mostly television dollars and the new conferences aren't going to be getting more without the home games. Further looking at the agreements, you don't actually get television money unless you are in the conference so if say Texas left for the Big Ten (just random choice), then the Big 12 would control all Texas home games TV rights and it would not be paying Texas Big 12 TV money as they are no longer in the conference.

Some of this might be able to be fought, but the fundamental point that the old conference keeps the media rights isn't going to change making any moves difficult until the agreements near completion.

Right. Arguing that it's not 100% impossible to get out of a GOR... sure, it's not 100% impossible, but that misses the point.

The point is that the GOR makes the move very unattractive financially to the conference that would be poaching teams covered by another league's GOR.

(02-13-2014 05:18 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(02-13-2014 04:50 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  The problem is that the whole point of the moves is mostly television dollars and the new conferences aren't going to be getting more without the home games. Further looking at the agreements, you don't actually get television money unless you are in the conference so if say Texas left for the Big Ten (just random choice), then the Big 12 would control all Texas home games TV rights and it would not be paying Texas Big 12 TV money as they are no longer in the conference.

Some of this might be able to be fought, but the fundamental point that the old conference keeps the media rights isn't going to change making any moves difficult until the agreements near completion.

Right. Arguing that it's not 100% impossible to get out of a GOR... sure, it's not 100% impossible, but that misses the point.

The point is that the GOR makes the move very unattractive financially to the conference that would be poaching teams covered by another league's GOR.

That's why conferences (Big-10, Big-12, Pac-12, ACC, and SEC) will be stable for the next 10 years.

The GOR, grants the rights to the Big 12, but the Big 12 is not obligated to air or broadcast the games.
of course the conferences sell their packages to Fox or ESPN and then it is up to them I suppose.

the OP does not understand what the GOR means

school X has granted their media rights to the conference, the conference controls those rights and sells them to the media partners and receives the revenue for that sale

school X gets a cut of that money based on their membership in the conference not based on the fact that their games were shown or not shown

so once school X leaves a conference the conference still controls the rights to televise their games and to collect the money for doing so, but the conference no longer owes school X a cut of that money because they are no longer a member of the conference

and while a school could (I suppose) in theory contest their games away from their home stajium there are several issues with this

1. that would cost money for renting that facility that is an expense and not a small one

2. that would have to be done for ALL games in ALL sports that they wanted to try and not call a home game

3. that requires travel for the (former) home team another expense.....and true many "top" teams stay over night in a local hotel before games their equipment staff, trainers, media staff and others do not because no one is worried about the SID staying out too late and partying ect

that would be a significant expense especially beyond football games it would basically be the expense of every game being a road game with the added expense of facility rental

4. few teams are going to have a suitable facility close by to move their games to

5. you are making it much more difficult for students to attend these games.....this cuts into the loyalty factor, this cuts into the crowd you will attract because at many schools students are a large factor in attendance

and most importantly even at "top" schools students often pay a student ticket fee automatically and or the university uses some portion of tuition to subsidize athletics in exchange for "student priced" tickets to popular events like football and mens BB and often free tickets for other less popular event

are students really going to be willing to still have those fees and tuition money paid to the athletics program when 100% of the games the university wishes to move away from campus (home) are contested well away from campus

take 2 examples of something similar....UH building a new stajium and knocking down their old one in the process.....attendance was way down even at nice new venues like Reliant and the soccer stajium and those are right in the same city and not more than 20 miles away

and yes the students probably still paid all athletics fees, but it was only football with the issue and it was because of a reasonable issue like needing a new stajium VS just looking to switch conferences and trying to pull a fast one n the process

the other is A&M that was faced with a similar decision and moving games to Houston 90-100 miles away

first there was the issues of students, students paying big money towards football when the product is 100 miles away and the fact that losing a season with todays ADD students (even at highly loyal Texas A&M) would probably make some of them less inclined to return after graduation because of a bitter taste and or the lack of that experience especially as a senior and again that is for a legit reason of building a new stajium not pulling a fast one

6. then you had the MAJOR issue with Texas A&M specifically and that was local businesses.....there goes that financial support for the year period......and hotel and restaurant owners that are going to lose a HUGE chunk of business are not likely to forget that move after just one or two seasons and at best they will probably curtail advertising for the number of years until they have made up the lost revenues by not paying that out in the form of program support.......all the worse when it is because you are trying to skirt conference affiliation and when you are doing it for more than one sport

7. back to the students look how Tech students ***** about the Baylor game as a game in dallas.....look at how Wazzu students ***** when the Apple Cup is in Seattle VS on campus

if a school has a strong home slate of games those "neutral site" games can be over looked or if they are OOC games for a big payout (more so if the conference home slate is still strong).......so not have a home slate of NO GAMES......not a popular idea

8. this assumes the GORs have no provision that calls "home game" a game played between a team that is in a conference with other teams and playing at a venue that is not the home venue of their conference opponent

9. it assumes the GOR does not have any guarantees about home many home games a team will hold no matter the venue

Actually the GOR is initially between the school and the conference but the conference really doesn't have anything to do with it once it is in place unless they have some unsold inventory.

For example, if the SEC did a GOR, the grant would be between Alabama and the SEC, but the SEC has sold all of its TV rights lock stock and barrel to ESPN so in reality the SEC has assigned its GOR rights to ESPN and the SEC doesn't really have care in the world about what Alabama does as long as ESPN is taken care of wires the money in on schedule.

(02-13-2014 05:51 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Actually the GOR is initially between the school and the conference but the conference really doesn't have anything to do with it once it is in place unless they have some unsold inventory.

For example, if the SEC did a GOR, the grant would be between Alabama and the SEC, but the SEC has sold all of its TV rights lock stock and barrel to ESPN so in reality the SEC has assigned its GOR rights to ESPN and the SEC doesn't really have care in the world about what Alabama does as long as ESPN is taken care of wires the money in on schedule.

Yeah I think you might want to look at the Telecast contracts between the Conferences and the Broadcasters also. There could be language that trumps the GOR. Who knows? Heck a team could leave a conference, and maybe the old conference is obligated to broadcast the departed schools games. That would be funny. The departed school will get TV money from the new conference so it doesn't matter.

The fact of the matter is that no one really knows how a challenge to the GOR would play out unless someone actually puts forth the challenge...

(02-13-2014 05:36 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  the OP does not understand what the GOR means

school X has granted their media rights to the conference, the conference controls those rights and sells them to the media partners and receives the revenue for that sale

school X gets a cut of that money based on their membership in the conference not based on the fact that their games were shown or not shown

so once school X leaves a conference the conference still controls the rights to televise their games and to collect the money for doing so, but the conference no longer owes school X a cut of that money because they are no longer a member of the conference

and while a school could (I suppose) in theory contest their games away from their home stajium there are several issues with this

1. that would cost money for renting that facility that is an expense and not a small one

2. that would have to be done for ALL games in ALL sports that they wanted to try and not call a home game

3. that requires travel for the (former) home team another expense.....and true many "top" teams stay over night in a local hotel before games their equipment staff, trainers, media staff and others do not because no one is worried about the SID staying out too late and partying ect

that would be a significant expense especially beyond football games it would basically be the expense of every game being a road game with the added expense of facility rental

4. few teams are going to have a suitable facility close by to move their games to

5. you are making it much more difficult for students to attend these games.....this cuts into the loyalty factor, this cuts into the crowd you will attract because at many schools students are a large factor in attendance

and most importantly even at "top" schools students often pay a student ticket fee automatically and or the university uses some portion of tuition to subsidize athletics in exchange for "student priced" tickets to popular events like football and mens BB and often free tickets for other less popular event

are students really going to be willing to still have those fees and tuition money paid to the athletics program when 100% of the games the university wishes to move away from campus (home) are contested well away from campus

take 2 examples of something similar....UH building a new stajium and knocking down their old one in the process.....attendance was way down even at nice new venues like Reliant and the soccer stajium and those are right in the same city and not more than 20 miles away

and yes the students probably still paid all athletics fees, but it was only football with the issue and it was because of a reasonable issue like needing a new stajium VS just looking to switch conferences and trying to pull a fast one n the process

the other is A&M that was faced with a similar decision and moving games to Houston 90-100 miles away

first there was the issues of students, students paying big money towards football when the product is 100 miles away and the fact that losing a season with todays ADD students (even at highly loyal Texas A&M) would probably make some of them less inclined to return after graduation because of a bitter taste and or the lack of that experience especially as a senior and again that is for a legit reason of building a new stajium not pulling a fast one

6. then you had the MAJOR issue with Texas A&M specifically and that was local businesses.....there goes that financial support for the year period......and hotel and restaurant owners that are going to lose a HUGE chunk of business are not likely to forget that move after just one or two seasons and at best they will probably curtail advertising for the number of years until they have made up the lost revenues by not paying that out in the form of program support.......all the worse when it is because you are trying to skirt conference affiliation and when you are doing it for more than one sport

7. back to the students look how Tech students ***** about the Baylor game as a game in dallas.....look at how Wazzu students ***** when the Apple Cup is in Seattle VS on campus

if a school has a strong home slate of games those "neutral site" games can be over looked or if they are OOC games for a big payout (more so if the conference home slate is still strong).......so not have a home slate of NO GAMES......not a popular idea

8. this assumes the GORs have no provision that calls "home game" a game played between a team that is in a conference with other teams and playing at a venue that is not the home venue of their conference opponent

9. it assumes the GOR does not have any guarantees about home many home games a team will hold no matter the venue

Are media rights considered assets of a Conference in a situation with a GoR?

(02-13-2014 06:15 PM)Dasville Wrote:  Are media rights considered assets of a Conference in a situation with a GoR?

I am 99% sure that is the case.....you are basically granting the rights to all of your content to the conference in exchange for a share of the proceeds from the conference

the difference between that and a buyout clause (and I am far from a lawyer) is that a buyout clause basically sets a starting point for liquidated damages to be contested in court to be disputed and fought over based on the claim that if we leave we are not doing X amount of financial damage to the conference

with the Big 12 as an example when MU and A&M left the Big 12 had a new 2nd tier deal with Fox in place that specified 10 teams in the conference and they had a 1st tier deal with ESPN that was set to expire in a few years

so as soon as the Big 12 added 2 teams, FOX was satisfied and the contracts stayed whole well MU and A&M can make the claim that there was no actual financial harm to the Big 12

then you get into the court case about "future value"......and then IF that had drug out (it did not of course MU and A&M and the Big 12 reached an agreement) well in the middle of all that again if it had drug out here is the Big 12 signing a new 1st tier deal with ESPN several years early......and getting good money for doing it

so again here is MU and A&M with a claim of no financial harm to the Big 12.....then you have to drag in media partners and potential media partners to say well if A&M and MU had stayed VS TCU and WVU we might have paid Y more dollars ect and on and on it goes

it is like the ACC Maryland deal.....the ACC has a 13 year (or 15 or whatever) deal in place that stays whole when Maryland leaves and how in the hell do you put a value on potential damages 15 years down the road from no Maryland......so you start with the 52 million penalty for leaving and work your way from there

and if that gets down low enough and others say "we can swing that to move to conference Z for more cash".......well out the door they go

with the GOR you are not arguing over dollars you have simply signed away the rights to your home games and the league owns them there is no money to fight over

and as I pointed out perhaps a team could get away with 1 (MAYBE 2) years of playing no "home games" but not a chance in hell they could survive 3 or more of all "away" games and or playing home games that most likely would not get on TV (which sucks for you and your new conference mate you are playing)

so it just makes it unattractive to leave and there is no starting dollar amount to fight over there is just contract law about you made this agreement to assign rights live with it.....or I suppose litigate it "forever" while not getting conference dollars and not getting on TV and or playing all "away" games until one day in the future (probably when the GOR ends) it all settles for whatever

it makes it much more risky for a school to say lets wade unto the unknown of what the courts will rule VS saying "OK they want 52 million lets get that down to something acceptable and GTFO ASAP"

I don't think the venue matters. If KU is the designated home team they control the broadcast rights. It doesn't matter if the game is in Lawrence or China.

I believe the B12 would care. By airing a KU/B1G game they are taking 1 or 2 B12 schools off the air. It won't directly affect the payout from their media package but there are a lot of other benefits to having your school/conference on TV.

(02-13-2014 07:09 PM)Wolfman Wrote:  I don't think the venue matters. If KU is the designated home team they control the broadcast rights. It doesn't matter if the game is in Lawrence or China.

I believe the B12 would care. By airing a KU/B1G game they are taking 1 or 2 B12 schools off the air. It won't directly affect the payout from their media package but there are a lot of other benefits to having your school/conference on TV.

I understand what you are saying, but take the TCU LSU came at Jerry World AT&T stajium

who is the "home team" in that deal......well whoever the two agree is the home team

I don't remember who aired that game or who was the "home team" and really they both got paid by Jerry and probably at least part of that was paid by whoever broadcast the game

so really they both could have called it a road game and pretended it was just one of their OOC games at the home stajium of the OOC team they played.....except it was at Jerry's AT&T World Stajium

(02-13-2014 07:18 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(02-13-2014 07:09 PM)Wolfman Wrote:  I don't think the venue matters. If KU is the designated home team they control the broadcast rights. It doesn't matter if the game is in Lawrence or China.

I believe the B12 would care. By airing a KU/B1G game they are taking 1 or 2 B12 schools off the air. It won't directly affect the payout from their media package but there are a lot of other benefits to having your school/conference on TV.

I understand what you are saying, but take the TCU LSU came at Jerry World AT&T stajium

who is the "home team" in that deal......well whoever the two agree is the home team

I don't remember who aired that game or who was the "home team" and really they both got paid by Jerry and probably at least part of that was paid by whoever broadcast the game

so really they both could have called it a road game and pretended it was just one of their OOC games at the home stajium of the OOC team they played.....except it was at Jerry's AT&T World Stajium

If it was originally a TCU home game, moving it to Jerryworld doesn't change that. The B12 still owns the rights. If it as a neutral site game from the beginning the details would be negotiated beforehand. Much like the pre-season or bowl games are done. It is not a home game for either team (although one is designated as the home team). Neither conference gets the broadcast rights but both teams get a higher payout .

However, the gist of the OP was airing of KU/B1G home games by the B12 media partners. KU isn't gong to tick off their fans and donors by moving games around to try and circumvent the GOR. Donations would plummet and that is still where most schools get most of their money. The B12 would fight to keep KU off the air for the reasons mentioned.

Actually both teams have equal telecast rights to a game, by custom we have gone to a system where the home team controls the TV rights but that is by league policy in conference games and by contract in non-conference games.

(02-13-2014 05:33 PM)Big Frog II Wrote:  

(02-13-2014 05:18 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(02-13-2014 04:50 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  The problem is that the whole point of the moves is mostly television dollars and the new conferences aren't going to be getting more without the home games. Further looking at the agreements, you don't actually get television money unless you are in the conference so if say Texas left for the Big Ten (just random choice), then the Big 12 would control all Texas home games TV rights and it would not be paying Texas Big 12 TV money as they are no longer in the conference.

Some of this might be able to be fought, but the fundamental point that the old conference keeps the media rights isn't going to change making any moves difficult until the agreements near completion.

Right. Arguing that it's not 100% impossible to get out of a GOR... sure, it's not 100% impossible, but that misses the point.

The point is that the GOR makes the move very unattractive financially to the conference that would be poaching teams covered by another league's GOR.

That's why conferences (Big-10, Big-12, Pac-12, ACC, and SEC) will be stable for the next 10 years.

Yes, the chances that any of the P5 will expand during the next decade is very slim. The only available schools (ones not covered by a GOR) are undesirable, and the only desirable schools are unavailable.

(02-13-2014 05:36 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  the OP does not understand what the GOR means

school X has granted their media rights to the conference, the conference controls those rights and sells them to the media partners and receives the revenue for that sale

school X gets a cut of that money based on their membership in the conference not based on the fact that their games were shown or not shown

so once school X leaves a conference the conference still controls the rights to televise their games and to collect the money for doing so, but the conference no longer owes school X a cut of that money because they are no longer a member of the conference

Disagree. The "grant" of the rights by the school to the conference is conditional on the school being paid by that conference. If the conference refuses to pay the school on the grounds that the school is not longer a member of the conference, then the conference is itself breaking the GOR, since that pay was the consideration received for the grant. The conference can't refuse to pay the school on any grounds, even the grounds that it has left the conference, without breaching its side of the bargain.

(02-13-2014 11:26 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-13-2014 05:36 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  the OP does not understand what the GOR means

school X has granted their media rights to the conference, the conference controls those rights and sells them to the media partners and receives the revenue for that sale

school X gets a cut of that money based on their membership in the conference not based on the fact that their games were shown or not shown

so once school X leaves a conference the conference still controls the rights to televise their games and to collect the money for doing so, but the conference no longer owes school X a cut of that money because they are no longer a member of the conference

Disagree. The "grant" of the rights by the school to the conference is conditional on the school being paid by that conference. If the conference refuses to pay the school on the grounds that the school is not longer a member of the conference, then the conference is itself breaking the GOR, since that pay was the consideration received for the grant. The conference can't refuse to pay the school on any grounds, even the grounds that it has left the conference, without breaching its side of the bargain.

You might want to go read the amended Big 12 Bylaws. It says just the opposite.

(02-14-2014 12:10 AM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(02-13-2014 11:26 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-13-2014 05:36 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  the OP does not understand what the GOR means

school X has granted their media rights to the conference, the conference controls those rights and sells them to the media partners and receives the revenue for that sale

school X gets a cut of that money based on their membership in the conference not based on the fact that their games were shown or not shown

so once school X leaves a conference the conference still controls the rights to televise their games and to collect the money for doing so, but the conference no longer owes school X a cut of that money because they are no longer a member of the conference

Disagree. The "grant" of the rights by the school to the conference is conditional on the school being paid by that conference. If the conference refuses to pay the school on the grounds that the school is not longer a member of the conference, then the conference is itself breaking the GOR, since that pay was the consideration received for the grant. The conference can't refuse to pay the school on any grounds, even the grounds that it has left the conference, without breaching its side of the bargain.

You might want to go read the amended Big 12 Bylaws. It says just the opposite.

OK, thanks.