They will when we bring gifts of AE dip, Casey’s breakfast pizza, and turkey and dressing sandwiches as we play turn trump euchre.
Report: OU & Texas reach out to join SEC
- Thread starter BigJCy
- Start date
They will when we bring gifts of AE dip, Casey’s breakfast pizza, and turkey and dressing sandwiches as we play turn trump euchre.
Lol were you hoping he was going to come out clapping, patting himself on the back with a Big 10 shirt on?
I wouldn’t have been against that.
Four more years in a dead conference. Lol. We HAD a great recruiting class.
we need to ksu on board with wild country
we need to call up stadium asap, they are gonna be our ota feed and they are upgrading to hd
we need to call up stadium asap, they are gonna be our ota feed and they are upgrading to hd
TLDR: Jamie is leading the remaining 8 to hold firm and get $500mm out of OU/TX
1. Hold on to the telecast agreement they got through 2025, although it likely will be modified downward through a terms renegotiation
2. Enforce OU/TX pay to make up the lost revenue THROUGH 2025
3. OU/TX also pay $160mm to be divvied up
4. OU/TX possibly pay other damages (reputation, image)
5. OU/TX possibly be in breach, as alluded to by OSU pres
Here’s my take from this, combined with the other Big 12 responses, combined with an analysis of the withdrawal terms from the Grant of Rights that was posted on reddit CFB. I’ve posted that long analysis below, but what I read is that the remaining 8 can get PAID by OU/TX in excess of whatever landing spot they could find, if the 8 can hold together. From the GOR, an intent to withdraw occurs when a supermajority determines a member makes statements or takes actions with intent to withdraw. The remaining 8 could determine that actions were taken previous to today’s announcement that OU/TX intended to withdraw. That alone puts OU/TX on the hook for 70/80mm each to pay out. But. Another clause states that if the conference cannot realize revenue from telecast partners from games of the withdrawing members, the withdrawing members are in breach of the agreement and are responsible for liquidated damages for the remainder of the GOR and the buyout amount shall be increased. This clause includes loss of revenues, damage to reputation and public image, damage to relationship.
This tells me that if the remaining 8 hold firm, they get to:
Full paste of the Reddit post is below (sorry for the long thread)
Guide to Big 12 Bylaws: Remedies of other 8 schools go beyond the "Buyout" clause if Texas and OU begin play in SEC before expiration of the current Grant of Rights Agreement, likely influencing settlement negotiations
Thought I would do a bit more of a deep-dive on how the "Withdraw" process for the Big 12 actually works because I've heard a lot of discussion of the buyout but if reports are correct that Texas and OU are trying to leave the conference earlier than the expiration of the Grant of Rights in 2025 then the buyout isn't the actual governing provision.
For reference the Bylaws of the conference can be found [here](https://static.big12sports.com/custompages/pdfs/handbook/bylaws.pdf)
First, there are two different documents that you will be hearing about. The first is the Bylaws which were adopted in 2012 once the current membership of the Big 12 was formed. This is the governing document of The Big 12 Conference, Inc. which is comprised of its 10 member institutions ("Members") and obligates the Members to remain in the conference for 99 years. Each member is represented by a Director on the Board of Directors that, depending on the matter at hand, can be considered either an "Interested Director" or a "Disinterested Director" as defined in Bylaw 1.5.2.2.
The other document that will be reference is the Grant of Rights Agreement which is the contract with between the Members and the Big 12 that gave the Big 12 ownership of each school's Tier 1 and Tier 2 TV rights and expires in 2025.
##The Withdraw Process##
This is where it gets technical. Following the announcement of OU and Texas that they do not intend to renew the Grant of Rights agreement, OSU President Dr. Kayse Shrum (and other Big 12 presidents) released a statement](https://twitter.com/drshrum/status/1419770976531738645?s=20) that included the language:
>"We believe these conversations, which developed over a long period of time, are in clear breach of the bylaws of the Big 12 Conference and broke a bond of trust between our universities in existence for decades."
Clearly this is a nod to Bylaw 3.2(ii)(A) that states a "Withdraw" from the conference shall be deemed to have occurred when:
>"a Supermajority of Disinterested Directors by affirmative vote determines that such Member: (A) makes statements or takes actions that are determined by a Supermajority of Disinterested Directors to evidence the intent of such Member to withdraw from the Conference either currently or in the future"
I am unsure if OU/Texas anticipated this result at this time, but it now means that the other Members (which in their discretion they have the right to do) are going to formally declare OU and Texas "Withdrawing Members" from the conference and triggering the buyout clause of Bylaw 3.4.
Following the declaration that Members are Withdrawing, the Effective Date of the withdraw is set for
>"The “Effective Date” of the Withdrawal shall be the June 30 that next follows the end of the period that is 18 full calendar months following the Notice Date,
Meaning in this case June 30, 2023.
##The Buyout and other Remedies##
And here's where we get tricky and maybe a little ambiguous. Were the Grant of Rights expiring in 2023, the Bylaws enforce liquidated damages of the the Withdrawing Members' equal to the distribution from the conference for its final two years of membership (likely between $70-$80 Million EACH).
HOWEVAH, looking further I think the damage calculation due to the years remaining on Grant of Rights causes other direct damages suffered by the institutions to be added into the mandatory Buyout.
The second and third subparagraphs of 3.4 state that if,
>"(B) for any other reason the Conference’s telecast partners are unable to produce and telecast games of the Withdrawing Member during the then-remaining term of the Grant of Rights Agreement ~~or~~ the Conference is unable to realize the revenues relating to those games from its telecast partners
then
>"the Members agree that such actions, in breach of the Withdrawing Member’s agreements in these Bylaws, cause additional damage to the Conference and therefore that the Buyout Amount shall be increased by, and shall also include, and the Withdrawing Member shall be obligated to pay to the Conference immediately upon the occurrence of any of the foregoing events, the amount of all actual loss, damage, costs, or expenses whatsoever (including but not limited to lost revenues, damage to reputation and public image, and damage to relationships with related parties) incurred by the Conference or any of its remaining Members directly or indirectly related to that challenge or opposition, whether economic or otherwise."
Certainly, OU and Texas leaving early would not allow the Big 12 to receive the revenue from their games past 2023 (assuming that's when they left) meaning the additional calculation would be in effect and shifts the bargaining position of the other Big 12 schools at least somewhat (IMO) in terms of what I am sure will be an ultimate settlement because there no longer is that clear damage cap that appeared to exist from the early reporting on this development.
1. Hold on to the telecast agreement they got through 2025, although it likely will be modified downward through a terms renegotiation
2. Enforce OU/TX pay to make up the lost revenue THROUGH 2025
3. OU/TX also pay $160mm to be divvied up
4. OU/TX possibly pay other damages (reputation, image)
5. OU/TX possibly be in breach, as alluded to by OSU pres
Here’s my take from this, combined with the other Big 12 responses, combined with an analysis of the withdrawal terms from the Grant of Rights that was posted on reddit CFB. I’ve posted that long analysis below, but what I read is that the remaining 8 can get PAID by OU/TX in excess of whatever landing spot they could find, if the 8 can hold together. From the GOR, an intent to withdraw occurs when a supermajority determines a member makes statements or takes actions with intent to withdraw. The remaining 8 could determine that actions were taken previous to today’s announcement that OU/TX intended to withdraw. That alone puts OU/TX on the hook for 70/80mm each to pay out. But. Another clause states that if the conference cannot realize revenue from telecast partners from games of the withdrawing members, the withdrawing members are in breach of the agreement and are responsible for liquidated damages for the remainder of the GOR and the buyout amount shall be increased. This clause includes loss of revenues, damage to reputation and public image, damage to relationship.
This tells me that if the remaining 8 hold firm, they get to:
Full paste of the Reddit post is below (sorry for the long thread)
Guide to Big 12 Bylaws: Remedies of other 8 schools go beyond the "Buyout" clause if Texas and OU begin play in SEC before expiration of the current Grant of Rights Agreement, likely influencing settlement negotiations
Thought I would do a bit more of a deep-dive on how the "Withdraw" process for the Big 12 actually works because I've heard a lot of discussion of the buyout but if reports are correct that Texas and OU are trying to leave the conference earlier than the expiration of the Grant of Rights in 2025 then the buyout isn't the actual governing provision.
For reference the Bylaws of the conference can be found [here](https://static.big12sports.com/custompages/pdfs/handbook/bylaws.pdf)
First, there are two different documents that you will be hearing about. The first is the Bylaws which were adopted in 2012 once the current membership of the Big 12 was formed. This is the governing document of The Big 12 Conference, Inc. which is comprised of its 10 member institutions ("Members") and obligates the Members to remain in the conference for 99 years. Each member is represented by a Director on the Board of Directors that, depending on the matter at hand, can be considered either an "Interested Director" or a "Disinterested Director" as defined in Bylaw 1.5.2.2.
The other document that will be reference is the Grant of Rights Agreement which is the contract with between the Members and the Big 12 that gave the Big 12 ownership of each school's Tier 1 and Tier 2 TV rights and expires in 2025.
##The Withdraw Process##
This is where it gets technical. Following the announcement of OU and Texas that they do not intend to renew the Grant of Rights agreement, OSU President Dr. Kayse Shrum (and other Big 12 presidents) released a statement](https://twitter.com/drshrum/status/1419770976531738645?s=20) that included the language:
>"We believe these conversations, which developed over a long period of time, are in clear breach of the bylaws of the Big 12 Conference and broke a bond of trust between our universities in existence for decades."
Clearly this is a nod to Bylaw 3.2(ii)(A) that states a "Withdraw" from the conference shall be deemed to have occurred when:
>"a Supermajority of Disinterested Directors by affirmative vote determines that such Member: (A) makes statements or takes actions that are determined by a Supermajority of Disinterested Directors to evidence the intent of such Member to withdraw from the Conference either currently or in the future"
I am unsure if OU/Texas anticipated this result at this time, but it now means that the other Members (which in their discretion they have the right to do) are going to formally declare OU and Texas "Withdrawing Members" from the conference and triggering the buyout clause of Bylaw 3.4.
Following the declaration that Members are Withdrawing, the Effective Date of the withdraw is set for
>"The “Effective Date” of the Withdrawal shall be the June 30 that next follows the end of the period that is 18 full calendar months following the Notice Date,
Meaning in this case June 30, 2023.
##The Buyout and other Remedies##
And here's where we get tricky and maybe a little ambiguous. Were the Grant of Rights expiring in 2023, the Bylaws enforce liquidated damages of the the Withdrawing Members' equal to the distribution from the conference for its final two years of membership (likely between $70-$80 Million EACH).
HOWEVAH, looking further I think the damage calculation due to the years remaining on Grant of Rights causes other direct damages suffered by the institutions to be added into the mandatory Buyout.
The second and third subparagraphs of 3.4 state that if,
>"(B) for any other reason the Conference’s telecast partners are unable to produce and telecast games of the Withdrawing Member during the then-remaining term of the Grant of Rights Agreement ~~or~~ the Conference is unable to realize the revenues relating to those games from its telecast partners
then
>"the Members agree that such actions, in breach of the Withdrawing Member’s agreements in these Bylaws, cause additional damage to the Conference and therefore that the Buyout Amount shall be increased by, and shall also include, and the Withdrawing Member shall be obligated to pay to the Conference immediately upon the occurrence of any of the foregoing events, the amount of all actual loss, damage, costs, or expenses whatsoever (including but not limited to lost revenues, damage to reputation and public image, and damage to relationships with related parties) incurred by the Conference or any of its remaining Members directly or indirectly related to that challenge or opposition, whether economic or otherwise."
Certainly, OU and Texas leaving early would not allow the Big 12 to receive the revenue from their games past 2023 (assuming that's when they left) meaning the additional calculation would be in effect and shifts the bargaining position of the other Big 12 schools at least somewhat (IMO) in terms of what I am sure will be an ultimate settlement because there no longer is that clear damage cap that appeared to exist from the early reporting on this development.
this is about saving college football, we get academia on board we will win and slowly take away all the other rejects, one by one and then in waves
Bingo. There is a lot more at stake than the flat buyout amount with this many years left in GOR.
I’m all for bleeding them dry. Make it miserable for them.
A couple key points there, and honest questions/topics for discussion:
-Says Tier 1/2 rights. What’s keeping ESPN from broadcasting TX/OU games as Tier 3 until the GOR is up and skipping over this?
-This last part about not being able to televise games and liquidated damages and such…woof. Seems too broad to actually enforce. Probably money there, but that just screams “room for negotiation”.
-If TX/OU have been working on this for months, they are already WAY ahead on their legal strategy for getting through this. This is like stealing the final exam. Have to imagine that element of surprise is going to pay off for them on avoiding the most harsh penalties, or at least reduce it to a point they are willing to pay (which may be high to us, but ultimately a poison pill if we continue a conference without them.)
-Can we get the penalties and take them to another conference?
Yeah I wonder if each remaining 8 team can take their payout and payoff other conferences to take them in after four years. A big part of all this is stability for recruiting. If a future deals could be cut so the remaining 8 could play out the Big 12, making more per year than they would have before while also able to say where they will be after 2025…that sort of lets each team fend for themselves while also getting more year-on-year than if any jumped ship while also maximum screwing of OU/TX.
I hear your other point about OU/TX having figured out how to not pay the contract, but their actions seems so clearly on-point for the intent of this contract would make me question if any GOR could hold up.
Last edited:
So Texas Tech's MBB coach leaves Lubbock for Austin in April
Kinda makes one wonder if he wasn't told that TT status as a P5 conference member was questionable going forward.
Also...for MBB the SEC would be a much easier gig.
I think it's clear this move has been coming for some time. OU & UT have been making their plans for at least 6-12 months.
Kinda makes one wonder if he wasn't told that TT status as a P5 conference member was questionable going forward.
Also...for MBB the SEC would be a much easier gig.
I think it's clear this move has been coming for some time. OU & UT have been making their plans for at least 6-12 months.
Ive been thinking about this for several days. I love my Clones, but I have to be a realist. I am not sure ISU adds enough value to the B1G to garner an invite. I think the same for KU. My guess is that we will eventually end up in the AAC. I think the entire college landscape will look vastly different in 10-15 years. The most Iowa State thing I can think of was getting respectable in football and our conference implodes. It was fun while it lasted anyway.
The idea that we end up in the aac is wrong. Our floor is the big12 adds top tier aac members.
Let's just be honest - it doesn't really make a huge difference.
I would guess it’s the PAC since their commissioner said he wanted to hear from big XII schools. Conferences aren’t to initiate the conversations.
The idea that the big12 leftovers are in par with the aac is ludicrous.
And we still haven't heard publically from Texas or OU why they are considering leaving. We've been with OU for like over 100 years together and still nothing. Thanks a lot. I guess we'll hear soon when they give their official invite to the SEC. I am sure they will throw the word, "academically", somewhere in there to make it present better than "money grab".
