Realignment thread

[FoCoSooner]

You’re constantly bashing everyone but the top of the SEC on the amount of 4 and 5 star players they get compared to the Big 12 and OU. Okay I’ll treat you like you’re 5. Look up the First Team offense for what would normally be the Pro Bowl. There is not one former 5 star player on there. So all your shit talk about how you have to have all 4 and 5 star recruits, and if you don’t your shit, is bullshit. So do us all a favor and stop sucking off the SEC every chance you get.

You may perceive it that way but it's not true at all. I have entire threads about teams underachieving, including SEC teams like Florida and Atm. You are just sensitive and insecure. The reason it bothers you is because it's true.

I point out the disparity of talent in the Big 12. Georgia has more 5 star players than the whole Big 12 combined for example. New Big 12 only has 5 five star players, Georgia has 15.


I am not going to look anything up for you .

You made a statement, you back it up.





You just just another insecure fan who is mad about what I said because it's true. lol.

[FoCoSooner]

We've had US Presidents misquote the number of states in the US. He misspoke, nothing more.

It's funny watching folks like you with an agenda say stuff like this. You have no idea why he said 17.


Lets find out if you believe it.


If the ACC does not add teams you can pick my avatar for a month.

IF the ACC adds teams I get to pick yours for a month.

This cycle, so we will know it's over if the Big 12 and PAC sign a GOR.


You game or funning like a coward?

[FoCoSooner]

Yea it just doesn't make sense to stand pat.

Maybe I'm reaching but I won't forget Jim Phillip's gaffe at the Football media days last summer. He referenced the conference and its 17 members......17?.....how does a commissioner make this mistake? Makes me thing something is in waiting or at the very least being negotiated.

Especially when the B1G and SEC are at 16.

He could have made a mistake and said 17 instead of 15, or it could have been him letting out a secret. We will know shortly.

Same situation for the Big 12 at 10 members, we all knew that was never the end game.


For the PAC and Big 12 I think they have incentive to stay at 12 to keep the $ as high as possible and to keep the chances of making the playoff as high as possible.

[FoCoSooner]

West Virginia & Cincinnati..? Baylor would be a good add at 18/ but I think Kansas would have to get offer to SEC or B1G beforehand... Justa guess...
Then one or the other of XII & PAC raid each other {basicly a defacto merger}, but w/o Kansas schools as Colorado/ Oregon look better to XII teams..?

That would seem to be the logical move. ACC already has some penetration in Ohio so adding Cinci would certainly make ACCN in footprint. WVU brings different value but is an overall better fit in the ACC.

I also don't really think the Big 12 would care about losing either of them like they would Baylor, TCU, OSU, or KU.

I could see ESPN saying look, you let OU/UT out, and let WVU/Cinci out, we will give you the same TV contract at 30 million. Just backfill with 2 of Memphis, Boise, USF, etc..



Seems like there are some real negotiations taking place right now as things have been quiet for a while.

[FoCoSooner]

Just read some interesting stuff going on in the PAC. Apparently they have a tire fire going on right now as they double billed Comcast and now all their valuations are shot to hell. A big time mess.

If the PAC implodes, I could see some PAC members going to the XII and some eastern XII members going to the ACC. That's going to be orchestrated by the mouse behind the curtain.

Yep, that poses and interesting situation.

But it might be an opportunity as someone like Amazon could offer to cover that bill as part of the TV contract, which would be appealing for the PAC.

If Amazon offers 35 per team and to cover the 50 million $ bill that would be hard to turn down IMO.

But Mouse may not want them involved as it may hurt the ESPN valuation if they are selling. I would think ESPN is more valuable without Amazon being in college sports which would mean they are losing market share.

[hiphopfroggy]

[FoCoSooner]

There has been a standing deal for the PAC at 25 million for months.

That was in July

https://zonazealots.com/2022/07/25/espn-reportedly-lowballs-pac-12-in-new-media-deal-offer/

That tweet sounds more like propaganda than actual news.



Hip, you want to have a fun bet.


I think the PAC will get more $ than the Big 12 did at 29 million overall average.
You seem to think the PAC will get less




Winner picks the losers avatar for a month after the PAC deal is announced.


You game or running?

[FoCoSooner]

Well we have 2 posters who have suggested

A. That the ACC will not expand
B That the PAC will make less than the Big 12


But when asked to make a simple fun bet for avatars they ran.


Now we know what they really think will happen.

Psychology is amazing.

[JRsec*]

Yea it just doesn't make sense to stand pat.

Maybe I'm reaching but I won't forget Jim Phillip's gaffe at the Football media days last summer. He referenced the conference and its 17 members......17?.....how does a commissioner make this mistake? Makes me thing something is in waiting or at the very least being negotiated.

There are 15 full shares for members, 1 full share for the Conference Office, and a partial share for Notre Dame. That's 17. I'm not excusing his gaff but at a conference meeting when referring to shares so often it is easy to see how members could be substituted for shares.

Or, you could be correct and he is just another idiot in a suit. We are plagued by those in DC.

[JRsec*]

Just read some interesting stuff going on in the PAC. Apparently they have a tire fire going on right now as they double billed Comcast and now all their valuations are shot to hell. A big time mess.

If the PAC implodes, I could see some PAC members going to the XII and some eastern XII members going to the ACC. That's going to be orchestrated by the mouse behind the curtain.

That's not as impossible as some may think. It could also provide cover for some other moves. Doesn't mean it will, but it could.

[FoCoSooner]

There are 15 full shares for members, 1 full share for the Conference Office, and a partial share for Notre Dame. That's 17. I'm not excusing his gaff but at a conference meeting when referring to shares so often it is easy to see how members could be substituted for shares.

Or, you could be correct and he is just another idiot in a suit. We are plagued by those in DC.

Who is the fifteenth full member in the ACC?


I thought it was 14 full members, plus the conference share, plus the ND share for 16 total.

[Legend]

You may perceive it that way but it's not true at all. I have entire threads about teams underachieving, including SEC teams like Florida and Atm. You are just sensitive and insecure. The reason it bothers you is because it's true.

I point out the disparity of talent in the Big 12. Georgia has more 5 star players than the whole Big 12 combined for example. New Big 12 only has 5 five star players, Georgia has 15.


I am not going to look anything up for you .

You made a statement, you back it up.





You just just another insecure fan who is mad about what I said because it's true. lol.

The only one that gives a shit is you. Everyone else just makes fun of you

[John Swofford]

There are 15 full shares for members, 1 full share for the Conference Office, and a partial share for Notre Dame. That's 17. I'm not excusing his gaff but at a conference meeting when referring to shares so often it is easy to see how members could be substituted for shares.

Or, you could be correct and he is just another idiot in a suit. We are plagued by those in DC.

There are 14 full share members.

[JRsec*]

Who is the fifteenth full member in the ACC?


I thought it was 14 full members, plus the conference share, plus the ND share for 16 total.

That is correct, I divided Notre Dame into two in my head. They get a full share of everything but football, and get a partial share of that.

[FoCoSooner]

The only one that gives a shit is you. Everyone else just makes fun of you

So you can't back any of your statements up.

Glad we got that straight.

[FoCoSooner]

That is correct, I divided Notre Dame into two in my head. They get a full share of everything but football, and get a partial share of that.

Ha, you had me looking on Google.

I can't really come up with any reason he would have said 17. But I also do not think that is definitive. But it's something.

There are a lot of ways ESPN could block Amazon.

My favorite is the ACC taking Oregon, Washington, Cal, and Stanford.

Big 12 taking the last 4-6.

Amazon getting the MW contract.


The most sensible is for the ACC to add WVU and Cinci.

Big 12 takes 2 of Memphis, Boise, USF, and SMU,

PAC 12 takes 2 of SDSU, Boise, SMU.


That pretty much gets everyone who can compete into the P-5. And at that point the G-5 is all pretty similar. That would set the stage for a breakaway on the next cycle and fit what you think might happen..

[ElectricSooner]

ACC taking Oregon, Washington, Cal, and Stanford.

honestly this would be the most ACC thing to do and would be pretty funny, they could even change the name of the conference to the American Coastal Conference, trade the Big 12 Louisville for UCF and it would all fit LOL

[FoCoSooner]

honestly this would be the most ACC thing to do and would be pretty funny, they could even change the name of the conference to the American Coastal Conference, trade the Big 12 Louisville for UCF and it would all fit LOL

Lets dig into that a bit.

How might presidents feel about this?

I actually think the presidents would love Cal, Stanford, Oregon, and Washington. ACC is academically elite and some of those are in that category. So I see that as a good fit.


Location?

Not ideal. But it is in areas that are growing, and have population, some rabid fans. ACCN in California, Oregon, and Washington would be worth something. But in the big picture ESPN could roll B12N into LHN and then package B12N, ACCN, and SECN as a nationwide package including an agreement with B12/ACC to have an OOC series. Flying a team across country to play a 4 game OOC series on the west coast is not idea but not the end of the world as far as travel. Once per year for most oly sports, FB 1-2 times.



Why would ESPN do this?

To block Amazon from taking the PAC deal. Allow the ACC to make more $ by expanding with the most valuable teams enhancing investment #2 and #3 at the same time. Make more $ with LHN by rolling B12 and PAC content into it.

[FoCoSooner]

So how about something nobody cares about so nobody should care about a prediction.

Where do you think Gonzaga will end up?

Stay, PAC, MW, Big 12, Big East?



I say Big East.

[ElectricSooner]

Lets dig into that a bit.

How might presidents feel about this?

I actually think the presidents would love Cal, Stanford, Oregon, and Washington. ACC is academically elite and some of those are in that category. So I see that as a good fit.


Location?

Not ideal. But it is in areas that are growing, and have population, some rabid fans. ACCN in California, Oregon, and Washington would be worth something. But in the big picture ESPN could roll B12N into LHN and then package B12N, ACCN, and SECN as a nationwide package including an agreement with B12/ACC to have an OOC series. Flying a team across country to play a 4 game OOC series on the west coast is not idea but not the end of the world as far as travel. Once per year for most oly sports, FB 1-2 times.



Why would ESPN do this?

To block Amazon from taking the PAC deal. Allow the ACC to make more $ by expanding with the most valuable teams enhancing investment #2 and #3 at the same time. Make more $ with LHN by rolling B12 and PAC content into it.

so are you saying the new ACC would be an 18 team league, or are we assuming something is worked out to allow 4 ACC teams to got to the SEC??? and if the ACC is going to 18 does the Big 12 take the 4 corners schools plus Washington State and Oregon State to get to 18, and then have those two conferences have scheduling alliance to help keep travel costs down. could permanently rekindle the Backyard Brawl, it would keep the Apple Bowl and the Water Animal Bowl, but then they would work it to where you have new permanent rivals for some other teams too.

[FoCoSooner]

so are you saying the new ACC would be an 18 team league, or are we assuming something is worked out to allow 4 ACC teams to got to the SEC??? and if the ACC is going to 18 does the Big 12 take the 4 corners schools plus Washington State and Oregon State to get to 18, and then have those two conferences have scheduling alliance to help keep travel costs down. could permanently rekindle the Backyard Brawl, it would keep the Apple Bowl and the Water Animal Bowl, but then they would work it to where you have new permanent rivals for some other teams too.

There are a lot of ways that could happen. I was referring to the ACC moving to 18.9 members with the 4 most valuable PAC schools for ACCN.

End results could be SEC at 16, B1G at 16, ACC and Big 12 at 18.

What you are suggesting would make sense as well. Lots of ways to skin this cat.

[FoCoSooner]

Speculating on what a reported Pac-12 Amazon and ESPN TV deal could look like

The future macro moves for Cal's future in the Pac-12 are in motion.


Avinash Kunnath
9 hr ago

6

10

With the Pac-12 Network likely heading into oblivion after the departure of USC and UCLA after the 2023-24 season, it’s time for the conference to iron out their next TV deal. It remains to be seen how much territory can be carved out in the negotiations, but it’s critical for George Klivakoff to get good terms to suit all parties.

Jon Wilner @wilnerhotline
The #Pac12 board meets today in Tempe. The agenda is meaty

bayareane.wsHefty agenda: Pac-12 presidents, executives scheduled to meet as vital issues loomThe university presidents will gather at Arizona State with athletic directors and Pac-12 executives for their quarterly meeting.
3:15 PM ∙ Jan 30, 2023

---

45Likes16Retweets
CBS Sports reports that the Pac-12 is likely to pursue Amazon and ESPN as joint partners in their new deal starting in 2024. While there was earlier speculation the conference might pursue a fully streaming partnership with Amazon just to chase the highest raw dollar amount, there is concern that going completely online will push the Pac-12 aside from first tier status. Maintaining a linear TV partner—particularly ESPN, which will maintain top billing for the near future in college athletics—is crucial for national attention, exposure, and more bids in a twelve team playoff system.

Former Fox Sports executive Bob Thompson (who has kept his ear close to all talks) weighed in with his prediction.

Bob Thompson @rltsports
ESPN/ESPN+/Amazon and yes I think they surely must be getting close.

webtraveler @realwebtraveler
@rltsports Do you think Pac 12 has it's packages largely drawn up and is now working the edges and finalizing terms? ESPN/CBS/Amazon or ESPN/CBS/ESPN+ Or some other package?
7:14 PM ∙ Jan 30, 2023

---

13Likes3Retweets
If it’s solely the Worldwide Leader, I’d expect ESPN to take on a package of about two dozen games, and Amazon would take up the rest.

Some conjecture on what ESPN would do with their games.

• ESPN would likely try and retain their Pac-12 After Dark rights to keep the profitable 7 to 7:30 PM Pacific/10 to 10:30 PM Eastern timeslot.
• The Big Ten TV partners of FOX, CBS and NBC could choose to counter with a late night game for UCLA and USC every now and then, but it’s likely they’ll cede that territory to ESPN since they will want those programs and the LA market in more premium slots.
• ESPN will likely carve out space for several Friday night games.
• ABC would probably grab one or two slots for the primetime or afternoon slots, but expect the bulk of those games to be eaten up by the SEC in ESPN’s new huge deal, with the Big 12 and ACC fighting for the remaining inventory as well.
• With ESPN retaining some rights, this will also likely preserve College Gameday taking at least one visit to the Conference of Champions a year.
• ESPN+ might also come into play for some of the less interesting Pac-10 vs. FCS games.

The rest of the football games would then fall to Amazon. If I were to break it down, it’d go something like this:

• Amazon will generally air an afternoon game, a primetime game, and a late night game to fill out the remainder of a weekly five game schedule. Since ESPN will have the late night slots, expect Amazon to put its bigger contests on during the day.
• Amazon will certainly want to put some of their more marquee matchups on Friday night to get the highest return on investment.
• There won’t be any Thursday night games due to Amazon’s existing Thursday night NFL deal, but you could certainly see them promoting a host of Pac-12 games during each telecast for an additional boost.

While the conference has generally been a fiasco in terms of actually reaching households, the gameday operations of the network have proven to be more than capable. Amazon has proven with its Thursday Night Football broadcast that it can handle widespread distribution. It could be a solid partnership.

As for college basketball, expect ESPN/ESPN2/ESPNU to take at least half if not the majority of the package. This will be critical for retaining the support of basketball contenders like Arizona and Oregon who have been sniffing around other opportunities, as well as attracting the likes of a San Diego State for expansion. It will likely mean more late night games.

ESPN+ will also likely take the majority of what remains of Pac-12 basketball, particularly women’s basketball and the mid-major men’s non-conference matchups. Disney is serious about making its ESPN streaming service work to help bundle new customers into more expensive packages. Any major college games will be helpful. The Big 12 does similar things with their college basketball games.

Now that they’ve seen success with Thursday Night Football, expect Amazon to take a solid step into basketball. There are rumors they will bid heavy for an online TV package for the NBA when the new rights deal is up in 2024-25. It’d make sense for them to complement that with some college basketball matchups, although I will imagine ESPN & ESPN+ will likely take the bulk of the games to start.

As for the Olympic sports, I’d imagine there will be a hard bid for ESPN to go hard in adding the Pac-12’s tier three media rights for their ESPN+ streaming service. The Pac-12 has by far the best Olympic sports of any college program, and it would provide a distribution boon to have these contests and any additional conference matchups on their streaming services. I do not see Amazon taking big swings on the Olympic sports since it’s unlikely to drive new subscriptions or retention.

Depending on who takes what, Amazon and ESPN+ will also likely take control of what remains of the Pac-12 Network apparatus of the conference, which will move from their expensive San Francisco office to San Ramon to save on office rent after the season. So I’d expect most of the Pac-12 Network announcers you’re familiar with to fill in their familiar roles on Amazon or ESPN+.

There are a lot of moving pieces, and ultimately the final numbers will determine success or failure. Initial projections by John Canzano from last summer has reports of the media deal falling around $27 to $29 million a year for each Pac-12 team like Cal, which would fall slightly behind the Big 12 ($31.6 million) and still dip behind their current payout of $30+ million. Before USC and UCLA left, the projections for a new TV media deal went as high as $50 million. Cal could receive an assistance of up to $2 to $10 million a year from UCLA, although expect that to be fought by the Bruins.

Safe to say, an answer is coming on TV rights deal. It might not be satisfactory, but it will keep conference members afloat…for the time being. It remains to be seen whether afloat is enough for everyone involved.

[hiphopfroggy]

[kopp0e]

https://www.burntorangenation.com/platform/amp/2023/2/1/23581486/longhorns-daily-news-texas-oklahoma-big-12-sec-2024

[ElectricSooner]

https://www.burntorangenation.com/pl...ig-12-sec-2024

ok, so a month or two. announcement no later than the Spring Game looks to be the target date. also, do you have enough tomato juice to take a bath in to get the smell of that website off of you???

[FtwTxSooner]

The intent was to have the last game against the pokes in Stillwater, with earlier there was rumblings the 2023 game would be played again in Norman because of that so that 2024 would be in Stillwater. But, that flipped. Texas is playing many road games in Texas, not necessarily to benefit them, but to give those Texas schools one last home sellout. So yeah, the schedule fits OU/UT being in the SEC in 2024.

[JRsec*]

https://www.burntorangenation.com/pl...ig-12-sec-2024

I wouldn't be too surprised if it is sooner.

[FoCoSooner]

I wouldn't be too surprised if it is sooner.

OU and UT in the SEC this year?


That's would be a big surprise, and have some challenges with scheduling.

[JRsec*]

OU and UT in the SEC this year?


That's would be a big surprise, and have some challenges with scheduling.

The scheduling is a red herring issue. The alternative schedules have been worked. It would be the buyout non-conference games that would be tricky. And note I didn't say likely, but there has been some talk behind the scenes.

[FoCoSooner]

The scheduling is a red herring issue. The alternative schedules have been worked. It would be the buyout non-conference games that would be tricky. And note I didn't say likely, but there has been some talk behind the scenes.

No, there are challenges

Why would they buy out games?

OU has 3 OOC games on the schedule, and would need 4 to playin the SEC.


Seems more like they would be scrambling to find 1 OOC game unless OU/OSU was worked out by FOX.

[SoonerSpock]

TBD but when the SEC goes to 16 teams it seems to me it is more viable to go to four four team divisions, play the 3 teams in their division annually and play 6 teams from the other 3 division (2 from each division) annually alternating to the other 6 cross division teams every two years. This means they will play every team in the conference at least twice every 4 years. Hence they would have a 9 game conference schedule and 3 non-conference games.

What fan would not love to see Georgia, Alabama, LSU, Florida, Tennessee, A&M, OU and the whorns play every team in the league at least twice every 4 years on a home and home basis?

Absolutely every true college football fan definitely would!!!

[JRsec*]

No, there are challenges

Why would they buy out games?

OU has 3 OOC games on the schedule, and would need 4 to playin the SEC.


Seems more like they would be scrambling to find 1 OOC game unless OU/OSU was worked out by FOX.

The why would depend upon the SEC alternative scheduling. I suspect when they come on board, you'll see 9 conference games as the poster above has indicated. It's logical and profitable to do so. The quibble would be 4 half divisions of 4, or just 3 permanent rivals and rotate everyone else in a division-less system?

[sOUltrain]

Well we have 2 posters who have suggested

A. That the ACC will not expand
B That the PAC will make less than the Big 12


But when asked to make a simple fun bet for avatars they ran.


Now we know what they really think will happen.

Psychology is amazing.

You change your name and avatar quite often, so it's no biggie for you.

[FtwTxSooner]

Despite the weather, Big 12 presidents and ADs are meeting at DFW Airport on Thursday. Probably just normal stuff but who knows.

[Mixer!]

Are the new kids invited, or is it just the X?

[FoCoSooner]

You change your name and avatar quite often, so it's no biggie for you.

I love seeing insecure fans change the subject. That's' when I know I must be right.

Did you have anything to add on realignment or are you just here to be my follower and obsess over me?

[SoonernVolved]

https://twitter.com/dennisdoddcbs/status/

Texas and Oklahoma recently made an offer to the Big 12 and Fox to leave the league one year early for the SEC, sources told CBS Sports this week. It was rejected. The nature of the offer was not clear.

CBS Sports previously reported the Big 12 rightsholder would have to be made whole for losing the Longhorns and Sooners early from its programming lineup. That could involve a series of nonconference games involving both schools being played in Big 12 stadiums once Texas and Oklahoma join the SEC.

Fox and ESPN hold the linear broadcast rights to the Big 12 through 2024-25. ESPN owns 63% of the value from the new $2.3 billion deal that begins in 2025. As such, it gets top picks with the four best football games each season, six of the top eight, eight of the top 12 and 12 of the top 20, according to SportsBusiness Journal. Fox, which owns the remaining 37% of the deal, receives 26 games per season. It is not clear whether Fox would get access to some of those ESPN picks if a deal was struck.

There was speculation that Tuesday's release of the 2023 Big 12 schedule was connected to the Texas-Oklahoma issue. In other words, nothing could happen until it was known when the programs would leave the league.

Not true. The league faced a deadline of early February from their rightsholders to get the schedule done. Fox and ESPN needed to start scheduling games themselves.

Meanwhile, time is running out for a potential early exit. As CBS Sports reported, Texas and Oklahoma want to leave early, but the complications are numerous.

The pair first made it known in August 2022 they wish to leave the Big 12 for the SEC at the conclusion of the 2023 season. For now, they are compelled by the current media rights deal to stay through the 2024 campaign before moving on.

[ElectricSooner]

https://twitter.com/dennisdoddcbs/status/

Texas and Oklahoma recently made an offer to the Big 12 and Fox to leave the league one year early for the SEC, sources told CBS Sports this week. It was rejected. The nature of the offer was not clear.

CBS Sports previously reported the Big 12 rightsholder would have to be made whole for losing the Longhorns and Sooners early from its programming lineup. That could involve a series of nonconference games involving both schools being played in Big 12 stadiums once Texas and Oklahoma join the SEC.

Fox and ESPN hold the linear broadcast rights to the Big 12 through 2024-25. ESPN owns 63% of the value from the new $2.3 billion deal that begins in 2025. As such, it gets top picks with the four best football games each season, six of the top eight, eight of the top 12 and 12 of the top 20, according to SportsBusiness Journal. Fox, which owns the remaining 37% of the deal, receives 26 games per season. It is not clear whether Fox would get access to some of those ESPN picks if a deal was struck.

There was speculation that Tuesday's release of the 2023 Big 12 schedule was connected to the Texas-Oklahoma issue. In other words, nothing could happen until it was known when the programs would leave the league.

Not true. The league faced a deadline of early February from their rightsholders to get the schedule done. Fox and ESPN needed to start scheduling games themselves.

Meanwhile, time is running out for a potential early exit. As CBS Sports reported, Texas and Oklahoma want to leave early, but the complications are numerous.

The pair first made it known in August 2022 they wish to leave the Big 12 for the SEC at the conclusion of the 2023 season. For now, they are compelled by the current media rights deal to stay through the 2024 campaign before moving on.

well this doesn't make it seem likely now

[FoCoSooner]

well this doesn't make it seem likely now

I wonder if this means the ESPN offer on the next TV contract goes down.

ESPN has it's ways of moving the puppets.


ESPN should make the OU and UT exit part of the next TV deal they offer. Big 12 is no position to bargain without a TV contract.


I guess if ESPN gets mad enough they can just move a few teams to the ACC.

That would be a fun one. ESPN offers the 30 million TV deal with OU and UT leaving in 2023. Big 12 says nope, they have to stay. ESPN moves 2-4 teams to the ACC and withdraws the TV contract they had offered. Big 12 has no real options at that point.

[JRsec*]

I wonder if this means the ESPN offer on the next TV contract goes down.

ESPN has it's ways of moving the puppets.


ESPN should make the OU and UT exit part of the next TV deal they offer. Big 12 is no position to bargain without a TV contract.


I guess if ESPN gets mad enough they can just move a few teams to the ACC.

That would be a fun one. ESPN offers the 30 million TV deal with OU and UT leaving in 2023. Big 12 says nope, they have to stay. ESPN moves 2-4 teams to the ACC and withdraws the TV contract they had offered. Big 12 has no real options at that point.

The compromise position would be ESPN's encouragement of some PAC 12 schools to move to the Big 12 to cover the inventory lost by the OU and UT moves. They (ESPN) have several sticks to use for leverage. It is merely a question of how big of a stick they need to use. I'm sure they would prefer to use the slightest one they could.

Add Gonzaga, Arizona State, Utah, & Colorado and let Texas, Oklahoma, another go (WVU to the ACC, or Kansas to the SEC) and the Big 12 stays where it is inventory wise. Any loss for the few picks FOX has can be worked out in trade of the order of the picks, or by cash, or by having OU and UT play away games in slots FOX can air.

This is all hype to enhance bargaining positions. And Oklahoma and Texas have 1 trump card left to play but would prefer to exit more nicely. What's that trump card? Sovereign Immunity is why heretofore no school has ever departed a conference for an exit fee which exceeds the 1 year of media rights money not paid. This is a District Court precedent and exists because collecting more becomes a sovereign immunity issue for State owned schools.

The GOR issue is separate and where the playing of away games which benefit the Big 12 could be compensatory.

[FtwTxSooner]

Overall the bigger sticking point is Fox. In 2024 Michigan play Texas in Austin. Fox gets to draft the first week in even years, so that is their game if they wanted it, above the RRS, like they did when selecting Alabama at Texas. Michigan at Texas would draw huge Big Nook Kickoff ratings.

[FoCoSooner]

The compromise position would be ESPN's encouragement of some PAC 12 schools to move to the Big 12 to cover the inventory lost by the OU and UT moves. They (ESPN) have several sticks to use for leverage. It is merely a question of how big of a stick they need to use. I'm sure they would prefer to use the slightest one they could.

Add Gonzaga, Arizona State, Utah, & Colorado and let Texas, Oklahoma, another go (WVU to the ACC, or Kansas to the SEC) and the Big 12 stays where it is inventory wise. Any loss for the few picks FOX has can be worked out in trade of the order of the picks, or by cash, or by having OU and UT play away games in slots FOX can air.

This is all hype to enhance bargaining positions. And Oklahoma and Texas have 1 trump card left to play but would prefer to exit more nicely. What's that trump card? Sovereign Immunity is why heretofore no school has ever departed a conference for an exit fee which exceeds the 1 year of media rights money not paid. This is a District Court precedent and exists because collecting more becomes a sovereign immunity issue for State owned schools.

The GOR issue is separate and where the playing of away games which benefit the Big 12 could be compensatory.

Everybody told me I was crazy when I mentioned sovereign immunity. Now here we are.. lol.


Marshall used that threat to leave a conference on short notice. No reason UT and OU could not try it.

[FoCoSooner]

Marshall has made it known it wants out of Conference USA.

To do so in the time it desires, Marshall filed a lawsuit Tuesday in Cabell County Circuit Court seeking relief via a declaratory judgment and injunctions against Conference USA. The suit goes on to say that as a West Virginia state school, Marshall is eligible for sovereign immunity and is not subject to the arbitration bylaw in C-USA.

“For more than two months, Marshall University has attempted to reach a resolution with Conference USA regarding our decision not to participate in the league after this academic year; however, no progress has been made,” Marshall said in a statement.

“The action we brought [Monday] is the beginning of litigation intended to protect our rights, help us reach an agreement in a timely manner and clear the way for our shift in conference affiliation. We look forward to a successful resolution of this matter and a bright future with the Sun Belt Conference.”

The Herald-Dispatch was first to report Marshall had filed the lawsuit. In it, MU says it gave notice to C-USA its intention to leave the conference by July 1 on three separate January dates — the 12th, 20th and 25th. In its final two notifications to the league, Marshall specified it wanted to be left off C-USA football schedules in 2022.

However, last week C-USA released its upcoming football schedule and had Marshall part of it, along with Southern Mississippi and Old Dominion, fellow C-USA members also bound for the Sun Belt.

Those schools then issued public statements stating their intent to leave C-USA and the conference’s unwillingness to cooperate a somewhat cordial exit.

While C-USA’s current bylaws require schools to give the league at least 14 months notice prior to departing it, Marshall says in its lawsuit that rule was not in place back in 2003 when the Thundering Herd joined C-USA, and therefore, MU is not subject to it.

Marshall, as well as ODU and Southern Miss, accepted invites to join the Sun Belt in October 2021.

Marshall is the first of those three schools to file a lawsuit in an effort to block the demand for arbitration, though it’s expected the other two will as well.

Back in 2011, as it tried to leave the Big East for the Big 12, West Virginia University filed suit against the Big East. The Big East responded with a countersuit and the two sides ultimately settled through mediation and WVU paid $20 million — four times the original exit fee — to leave for its current conference.

[FoCoSooner]

arshall University Wants Out but Conference USA Says "Not So Fast"





“For more than two months, Marshall University has attempted to reach a resolution with Conference USA regarding our decision not to participate in the league after this academic year; however, no progress has been made” stated Marshall University’s Athletic Department.[1] The University subsequently filed suit against Conference USA in the Cabell County Sixth Circuit Court in Huntington, West Virginia to “protect [their] rights, help [them] reach an agreement in a timely manner, and clear the way for [their] shift in conference affiliation”.[2]


The issue originated from Marshall’s initial acceptance into the Sun Belt Conference on October 30, 2021.[3] The University served Conference USA on November 1, 2021 with a withdrawal notice indicating its intention to leave.[4] In response, the Sun Belt stated Marshall would join its conference no later than July 1, 2023. However, with numerous universities announcing their departure from Conference USA, the conference’s upcoming season seemed increasingly uncertain as its member list quickly diminished. This sudden shift in conference membership prompted Marshall, along with Southern Mississippi University (“Southern Miss”) and Old Dominion University (“ODU”), to express plans to terminate their existing relationship with Conference USA earlier than the July 1, 2023 deadline.[5] Marshall notified Conference USA on three separate occasions regarding its intention to end its membership on July 1, 2022 instead of July 1, 2023, and requested not to be placed on any upcoming athletic schedules.[6] Despite Marshall’s notices, Conference USA released its 2022 football schedule which still included Marshall, Southern Miss, and ODU. Conference USA emphasized its plans on to move forward with the current institutions and expressed its willingness to “exhaust all necessary legal actions to make member schools abide by their contracts”.[7]


As Conference USA sees it, Marshall and the other schools are unable to withdraw due to the conference’s official bylaws. Section 3.06 states a withdrawal from the conference is only permitted with a 14-month notice.[8] Section 14.01 adds any disputes will be resolved via arbitration in Dallas, Texas.[9] Because Marshall desired to exit the conference on July 1, 2022 and the four notifications were delivered on November 1, January 12, January 20, and January 25, the school violated Section 3.06’s requirements.[10] Conversely, Marshall argues the arbitration provision in Section 14.01 should not apply for two major reasons: it violates the Eleventh Amendment of the United States Constitution, and the arbitration provision was not included in the Conference USA bylaws when Marshall signed its new member agreement in October of 2003.[11]


Regarding the first argument, the Eleventh Amendment of the U.S. Constitution bars federal courts from hearing any suit against any one state by citizens or subjects of another state.[12] Marshall claims that sovereign immunity and the Eleventh Amendment applies because it is a West Virginia state school.[13] Therefore, arbitration in Texas, where Conference USA headquarters is located, for the 14-month notice dispute would be prohibited because a federal court could not hear Conference USA’s claim against Marshall, a West Virginia entity.[14] Perry Oxley, an attorney representing Marshall, stated:


Arbitration in Texas is prejudicing Marshall University because we can’t participate in that venue for . . . we are constitutionally bound to only be made a defendant here [in West Virginia]. As a result of that fact, there is irreparable harm for that proceeding moving forward. [West Virginia] is a proper venue, and to preserve our sovereign immunity, we need to have the case here.


[15] However, despite a very strong argument made by Marshall, Conference USA could also have a valid counterclaim. Strikingly analogous to the dispute at hand, in Big East Conf. v. W. Va. Univ., West Virginia University (“WVU”) wanted to switch from the Big East Conference to the Big 12 Conference in 2011.[16] WVU sued in West Virginia state courts regarding similar notice requirements, but the Big East demanded the dispute be resolved through arbitration in Rhode Island because Big East headquarters are there.[17] The court placed a strong emphasis on language from Nevada v. Hall, which states, “no sovereign may be sued in its own courts without its consent, but it affords no support for a claim of immunity in another sovereign’s courts.”[18] Subsequently, the court concluded the dispute between West Virginia and the Big East could continue in Rhode Island.[19] Niall Paul, an attorney retained by Conference USA, seemed to rely on the holding in Nevada v. Hall by stating, “the courts are pretty clear in this idea that when you agree to arbitration, sovereign immunity doesn’t protect you from that. You have chosen your forum”.[20] Given the similarity in facts, it is reasonable to assume the court could potentially take a similar stance in determining the outcome of Marshall and Conference USA’s dispute.


Marshall’s second contention rests on the idea that Section 14.01’s arbitration provision was not included in Marshall’s original new member agreement from 2003. Perry Oxley stated, “at this point, we are not aware of the document that demonstrates mutual assent” regarding arbitration for disputes involving membership termination.[21] Despite conceding this point for lack of a signed document, Niall Paul remarked, “[by] continuing to participate in the league from that point forward, thus receiving millions of dollars in the process, Marshall accepted the implicit terms of those bylaws.”[22] Additionally, included in Conference USA’s new member agreement is the following:


The terms and conditions of Marshall’s participation in the Conference as a member shall be governed by the Conference Bylaws, as such Bylaws may be amended from time to time. As a condition of becoming and remaining a Conference Member, Marshall agrees fully and completely to abide by and comply with all provisions and conditions of the Bylaws, as such Bylaws may be amended from time to time.


[23] Given this clear language indicating the bylaws may be amended in addition to accepting those bylaws through continued participation in the conference, Marshall is bound by the amended Conference USA bylaws, including the arbitration provision found in Section 14.01.


Although I am an alumnus of Marshall University, the school faces a difficult battle because the case seems to give greater support towards Conference USA. Ultimately, Marshall will likely exit Conference USA before the start of the 2022 college football season, but its departure will not come without a cost. If the Court takes the perspective outlined in Big East Conf. v. W. Va. Univ., Marshall will be forced to abide by Section 14.01 which requires arbitration in Texas. A lack of jury, finality (no appeals), and the large expenses from Marshall’s pocket highlight a few of many reasons why Marshall wishes to avoid arbitration in Texas. Its only alternative would be settlement.


With two options at hand, it seems likely Marshall would favor settlement to avoid the out-of-pocket expenses associated with arbitration centered around a scenario in which success is unlikely. Arbitration or settlement alike, Marshall’s ticket to the Sun Belt in 2022 will likely include an early termination payment if provided for in the undisclosed contract between the parties. It’s a matter of whether Marshall is willing to accept arbitration burdens along with an early termination fee. Judge Christopher Chiles of the Cabell County Circuit Court recently granted Marshall’s request for a temporary arbitration restraining order.[24] This allows Marshall 10 additional days to review the case before the parties reconvene on March 16.[25] During this period, Marshall may reassess if arbitration could be worth it after all. Ultimately, Marshall must decide whether the benefits of potential success outweigh the cost of arbitrating halfway across the country.

[Danomalous]

Everybody told me I was crazy when I mentioned sovereign immunity. Now here we are.. lol.


Marshall used that threat to leave a conference on short notice. No reason UT and OU could not try it.

Everybody tells you you're crazy because you're bat shit looney toon crazy.

You mentioned sovereign immunity because you read about it on the internet.

[FoCoSooner]

Everybody tells you you're crazy because you're bat shit looney toon crazy.

You mentioned sovereign immunity because you read about it on the internet.

No, insecure people get mad because I prove them wrong. So the way they cope is to run around hurling insults to make themselves feel better.

The other group just gets quiet when they are wrong and they run. That's how most people on this thread operate.

We know what group you are in. Speaks volumes about your mental state.


I mentioned it because I think it could work, and it certainly applies to this situation as there are a lot of similarities to the Marshall situation. When you did in it's quite interesting.



So do you have the business sense to have an adult conversation about this? Or are you just another insecure insult hurler? So far you are the latter.

[61Sooner]

Speaking of realigning things, how about replacing the masthead picture atop dirtburglars. Every time I see it I think 6-7.
Put a football picture up there when the team accomplishes something to deserve recognition.
How about a picture of winners such as the softball team? They certainly deserve it.

[FtwTxSooner]

The deal with sovereign immunity, it depends upon the state, and many times, when a state entity enters into a valid contract, they waive the ability to claim sovereign immunity for a breach of contract claims.

In Oklahoma, for instance,

In State Board of Public Affairs v. Principal Funding Corp.,' the Oklahoma Supreme Court held that when a person or entity enters into a valid contract with the proper State officials and a valid appropriation has been made therefor, the State has consented to being sued and waived its governmental immunity to the extent of its contractual obligations and such contractual obligations may be enforced against the State in an ordinary action at law.

[FoCoSooner]

Texas is one of only four states that consistently uphold sovereign immunity in the context of contract disputes.129 The Texas Supreme Court has held that the concept of sovereign immunity embraces two principles: (1) immunity from suit; and (2) immunity from liability, which are separate and distinct.130 Immunity from suit bars an action against the state unless the state expressly consents to the suit.131 In contrast, immunity from liability protects the state from judgment even if the legislature has expressly consented to the suit.13

Furthermore, a state is liable for contracts made for its benefit as if it were a private person.133 Consequently, when the state contracts with private citizens, it waives its immunity from liability.134 In Federal Sign v. Texas Southern University, the Texas Supreme Court reaffirmed the principle that the State of Texas, its agencies, and its officials do not waive immunity to suit by merely entering into a contract with a private entity or person;135 however, the Court restricted its holding to the facts of the case before it and expressly warned: We hasten to observe that neither this case nor the ones on which it relies should be read too broadly. We do not attempt to decide this issue in any other circumstances other than the one before us today. There may be other circumstances where the state may waive its immunity by conduct other than simply executing a contract so that it is not always immune from suit when it contracts.136 In a concurring opinion, Justice Hecht, joined by three other justices, all of whom joined the six-member majority opinion, restricted the holding to its facts and specifically pointed out that the decision did not apply to debt obligations such as bonds, because the contract in question dealt exclusively with goods and services.137 In addition, the concurring opinion posed hypotheticals regarding when a party had tendered performance to the state, fully performed services on state property, or delivered goods that were accepted by the state, and concluded that the hypotheticals were not decided by the Federal Sign opinion.138 The concurring opinion emphasized and warned that the state may waive immunity to suit by conduct other than simply executing a contract. It concluded by stating “[i]n short, today’s decision does not hold that the state is always immune from suit for breach of contract absent legislative consent; it holds only that the mere

execution of a contract for goods and services, without more, does not waive immunity from suit.”139 The Texas Supreme Court then held that the waiver-byconduct exception to sovereign immunity could not be judicially adopted in light of the existence of Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Chapter 107 and Texas Government Code Chapter 2260.140 Also, the court held that courts must defer to the legislature on whether to waive sovereign immunity.141 Consequently, the court concluded that the only means of redressing breach of contract claims against the state is with legislative approval;142 therefore, unless a particular statute confers consent, a person cannot sue the state for breach of contract without legislative consent under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Chapter 107 and Texas Government Code Chapter 2260 (hereinafter Chapter 2260). Thus, compliance with the notice and claim procedures of Chapter 2260 is a mandatory prerequisite before a person can petition to sue the state.143 One interpretation of this decision could lead to the conclusion that the Texas Supreme Court rejected a waiver-byconduct theory as to any contract with the State of Texas. But, the court’s analysis was based largely on that all the appeals before it were within the coverage of Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Chapter 107 and Chapter 2260. The court concluded that the legislature had foreclosed the possibility for a waiver-by-conduct exception in breach of contract claims covered by the statutory provisions.144 In 2002, the Texas Supreme Court decided a case that at first appeared to bar the waiver-by-conduct theory, but at the same time maintains its potential validity.145 In Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission v. IT-Davy, IT-Davy’s contract was not subject to the provisions of Chapter 2260, but was clearly within the provisions of Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Chapter 107.146 IT-Davy alleged it had fully performed the contract and

MISSISSIPPI SPORTS LAW REVIEW [VOL. 1:2 that the Texas Natural Resource Conversation Commission had accepted the full performance.147 These facts were assumed to be true because the case was before the court on a petition to review the court of appeals’ ruling on an interlocutory appeal from the trial court’s denial of a plea to the jurisdiction based on sovereign immunity.148 Furthermore, the Texas Supreme Court reaffirmed its holding in General Services Commission v. Little-Tex that only the legislature can waive or abrogate its sovereign immunity, and the court refused to recognize a waiver-by-conduct theory.149 The concurring justices concluded that the court could, however, still recognize waiver other than by express consent or statutory authorization in future cases that involve acknowledged contractual compliance and a refusal to pay the contract price.150 The Texas Supreme Court appears to indicate in multiple cases that the waiver-by-conduct doctrine is no longer a viable argument; however, each opinion is left with a caveat of possibility in a certain case.151 However, the court has never found that a governmental body (including an institution of higher learning) has waived sovereign immunity by entering into a contractual agreement. Therefore, a plaintiff is left to rely on cases from the courts of appeals, which by and large fall on Texas Southern University v. State Street Bank & Trust Company.152 In State Street Bank, the Texas Court of Appeals held that government officials lured the party into entering into a contractual agreement with false promises, and then disclaimed any obligation under the contract; therefore, Texas Southern University waived sovereign immunity based on its conduct.153 Coach Mike Leach, whose lawsuit against Texas Tech University relating to his termination was recently denied review of his wavier-by-conduct argument by the Texas Supreme Court, cited Texas Southern University as authority for the proposition that a state institution can waive sovereign immunity by conduct,

From Backyard Brawls to Cash Cows 269 but the Amarillo Court of Appeals failed to follow his analysis and held that the Texas Supreme Court has not acknowledged a single case that has allowed waiver-by-conduct.154 As such, Texas Tech University’s appeal in favor of sovereign immunity was granted and review was denied by the Texas Supreme Court.155 According to a long line of case law that simply has failed to adopt a single case that would grant sovereign immunity based on the doctrine of waiver-by-conduct, Texas A&M would more than likely be successful in defending itself against a breach of contract cause of action. Baylor would not be precluded from seeking relief by equitable or declaratory means.156 Thus, Baylor could maintain an action to enjoin Texas A&M, but would not be able to seek monetary damages. For example, Baylor could argue that the defection of Texas A&M would cause 1) scheduling difficulties with other member institutions; 2) parties to media rights agreements would terminate their agreements with the Big 12 and member institutions; 3) the national reputation of the Big 12 would be diminished; and 4) the Big 12 is unable to attract other acceptable replacements. F. Potential Claims against the Southeastern Conference The SEC worked diligently to give the appearance that it did not attempt to procure Texas A&M for admission into the conference.157 In fact, the SEC initially denied Texas A&M’s request for admission only to reverse the decision in subsequent weeks.158 Clearly, such maneuvers were created to avoid potential legal claims in light of Baylor’s threats of litigation. Specifically, Baylor would likely have sought monetary damages, if suit was filed, pursuant to a cause of action for tortious interference with a contract. Unlike Texas A&M, the SEC, a private company, will not

Katz & Schad, supra note 98. 270 MISSISSIPPI SPORTS LAW REVIEW [VOL. 1:2 have a sovereign immunity defense and, thus, would have to defend the merits of the claim. The elements for a tortious interference with a contract cause of action are: (1) the existence of a contract subject to interference; (2) the occurrence of an act of interference that was willful and intentional; (3) the act was a proximate cause of the plaintiff’s damage; and (4) actual damage or loss occurred.159 In reviewing a claim of this kind, the first question will be how did the relationship originate? During the domino effect created by the Big Ten’s announcement that it was considering conference expansion, SEC Commissioner Mike Slive contacted the Big 12. Commissioner Slive informed the Big 12 that the SEC would make advances to Texas A&M and Oklahoma to determine whether those institutions would consider joining the SEC.160 Although both Texas A&M and Oklahoma did not seek admission to the SEC at that time, Commissioner Slive continued to discuss and approach Texas A&M about joining the SEC including a discussion at the 2011 Cotton Bowl in Dallas, Texas.161 Indeed, when the Board of Regents of Texas A&M provided approval for President Bowen Loftin to gain admission to the SEC, Commissioner Slive slyly stated, “I believe the SEC would favorably consider that.”162 Thus, the genesis of the relationship came at the insistence of the SEC with the intent of coaxing Texas A&M to join the SEC. A move by Texas A&M from the Big 12 to the SEC will have large ramifications on a national scale including the possible dissolution of the Big 12. As such, Texas A&M’s withdrawal from the Big 12 could have affected media rights agreements that could have substantially reduced the revenue distributed to Big 12 member institutions like Baylor. In fact, Baylor may not be able to gain acceptance into another conference that would provide for revenue at or near the level of the Big 12. As such, the overtures made by the SEC to Texas A&M constitute interference with

] From Backyard Brawls to Cash Cows 271 existing contracts and likely the proximate cause for any damages that arise. The more difficult element at this stage is whether Baylor has been damaged by the SEC’s conduct. If the Big 12 stays intact, as it appears it will, and the media rights holders do not seek to terminate or otherwise renegotiate the terms of existing media rights agreements, then Baylor’s damages are substantially reduced. Currently, it appears that the Big 12 will remain a viable conference on a national scale. However, if the Big 12 dissolves or media rights holders seek to alter the revenue stream provided in accordance with negotiated agreements, then Baylor will likely have a multi-million dollar claim for damages. IV. WHAT IS THE AFFECT OF CONFERENCE REALIGNMENT? The desire to win at virtually any cost and to attract elite athletes combined with the increases in public interest in intercollegiate athletics, in a consumer sense, has led to a highly commercialized world of intercollegiate athletics that focuses more heavily on revenue than anything else.163 The former commissioner of the Big East, Mike Tranghese, summarized conference realignment as follows: I think college football has just taken control of everything. All these moves are about football and money and greed . . . What we have are little fiefdoms who have conference names and we’re living in a society where it’s almost like its Wall Street. Greed is good and I’m Gordon Gecko.164 Comments like these require introspective questions like what are the effects of realignment and what is the actual focus of intercollegiate athletics?

[FoCoSooner]

The deal with sovereign immunity, it depends upon the state, and many times, when a state entity enters into a valid contract, they waive the ability to claim sovereign immunity for a breach of contract claims.

In Oklahoma, for instance,

That is one unique case. This case has some differences, including OU not agreeing to be in a conference with UCF, Cinci, etc..