***OFFICIAL BIG 12 EXPANSION THREAD 2.0***

[swarthmoreCY]

Are you talking about a freaky-deaky shadow conference? The ACC becomes the Skull & Bones / Fight Club of BCS conferences? I like it.

Unless the BIG goes to 18 or 20 and the SEC and Big 12 go to 16, there are going to be some decent ACC and Big East programs left out. I imagine to stay relevant, they would be willing to any type of scheduling alliance with any Big 4 conference and ND. They will need to use their 4 OOC games to boost their programs brand.

All I take from such alliance rumors is that certain members of the Big 12 are not interested in going past 12 given what they think will be available. If that is due to $/school, short-sighted but fine, but I hope it is not due to Dodds ND wet dream.

[ShopTalk]

I'll take "Poop Against the Wall" for $200 Alex.

[Wesley]

I'll take "Poop Against the Wall" for $200 Alex.

"And for your $200 question, will you take Miami, FSU, Clemson, and Virginia for national prestige if it meant you had $2M/yr less in your school coffers? "

[UNIGuy4Cy]

I'll take "Poop Against the Wall" for $200 Alex.

Not from Chip Brown, that guy is connected.

[swarthmoreCY]

"And for your $200 question, will you take Miami, FSU, Clemson, and Virginia for national prestige if it meant you had $2M/yr less in your school coffers? "

Would UT and OU? In the case of UT, that would be ideal- more prestige and less money for those that need it more than you.

[aeroclone]

Unless the BIG goes to 18 or 20 and the SEC and Big 12 go to 16, there are going to be some decent ACC and Big East programs left out. I imagine to stay relevant, they would be willing to any type of scheduling alliance with any Big 4 conference and ND. They will need to use their 4 OOC games to boost their programs brand.

All I take from such alliance rumors is that certain members of the Big 12 are not interested in going past 12 given what they think will be available. If that is due to $/school, short-sighted but fine, but I hope it is not due to Dodds ND wet dream.

Don't forget rule number 1 about conference realignment: it is all about the money. We would add FSU and Clemson to the Big 12 if it makes us more money. It does that by adding more sexy matchups that TV networks are willing to pay big money for. Nobody is going to be willing to pay more for games with ACC and Big East leftovers. If games with those schools were worth any money, they wouldn't be leftover when the Big 12, B1G, and SEC expand. Plus, what motivation would we have to subsidize those programs left behind? We don't need to do that to appease FSU and Clemson. They don't have any leverage in this deal. They have to come on board if they want to stay relevant, they have nowhere else to go.

[stateofmind]

"And for your $200 question, will you take Miami, FSU, Clemson, and Virginia for national prestige if it meant you had $2M/yr less in your school coffers? "

I would if it meant that my conference wasn't going to be able to survive the other conferences growing larger if we didn't expand. Heck, that $2M is future money that we don't have right now.

[Wesley]

The real advantage to adding Florida and SC teams is B12 viewership in the East would be much greater. When I lived in Virgina for 5 years, all we knew was ACC games coming on at 1:00 EST. That would change if the BIG and B12 moves east.

[HFCS]

Unless the BIG goes to 18 or 20 and the SEC and Big 12 go to 16, there are going to be some decent ACC and Big East programs left out. I imagine to stay relevant, they would be willing to any type of scheduling alliance with any Big 4 conference and ND. They will need to use their 4 OOC games to boost their programs brand.

All I take from such alliance rumors is that certain members of the Big 12 are not interested in going past 12 given what they think will be available. If that is due to $/school, short-sighted but fine, but I hope it is not due to Dodds ND wet dream.

It's always been about football and there have always been four conferences that are clearly above the rest in football for the past two to three decades. The ironic thing would be if UNC bolts to a football league after being the "texas" like power player in their basketball important conference.

The Champions Bowl should make Big 12 fans feel at ease. I don't think the SEC's targets are anywhere near Big 12 territory anymore and I think the Big 12 brass finally realizes with expansion they can be more attractive than the Pac 12. I was a little worried about KU to B1G but then they added two non-football schools, if they go to 16 they need better football and recruiting region than KU. KU would only be a solid #16 if Notre Dame is #15 and they stop there, but then they've done all this expanding and not gone south at all.

[Wesley]

http://collegesportsinfo.com/confere...lignment-grid/

Updated 17 Jan 13.

[Wesley]

Prepare: Expansion Imminent

Believe it. They want a fresh start in a new conference and they've indicated to the Big 12 that if offered, they'd accept. My guess is: Miami, Fla. St., Clemson, Ga. Tech, Va Tech and NC State.

And then there was this:
http://www.baylorfans.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=251882

Your ideal Big XII?

BYU
ISU
Iowa
KU
KSU
Mizz
Neb
ND

A&M
Ark
BU
LSU
OU
OSU
TT
UT

http://www.digtriad.com/assetpool/documents/121127034238_acc-vs-umd.pdf

Originally Posted by Baylor187

Baylor Lawyer here. Basically these are the pleadings filed by the ACC against Maryland. This is essentially the ACC stating that UM is refusing to pay the full amount of the exit fee which thereby gives the ACC grounds to seek a judgment from the court that orders UM to pay the exit fee. Keep in mind that you can pretty much allege anything in your pleadings, but this appears to be pretty accurate factually.

The problem the ACC is going to have is that you generally cannot contract for liquidated damages (ie, predetermined damages) that are punitive (ie, punishing/deterrent) in nature, and there is a very good chance the court (or the court of appeals) will rule that this provision of the ACC bylaws are unenforceable.

To give you an example, say you sign an apartment lease for two years but you want to break the lease after only one year. A lease is a contract, and breaking the lease is essentially a breach of contract. The lease can assess a penalty , such as charging a couple of months rent to offset the cost of having to find another renter. These are referred to as "liquidated damages." However, if the land lord tried to ***** 3 years worth of rent as a penalty for breaking a lease one year early, its very unlikely such a provision would ever be enforced by the court. There has to be some reasonable correlation between the financial loss of the breach and the amount of liquidated damages in the contract.

Here, it is pretty clear that the +50 mil exit fee is intended to serve as a deterrent to keep teams from leaving the ACC and is not for the purpose of compensating the conference for the expenses incurred in finding a replacement member. The ACC has to be careful here. A court could strike down the provision entirely which would allow schools to get out of the ACC by only paying the amount of the actual amount of $ incurred by the ACC in the defection. With UConn waiting in the wings and the TV contract already in place, that number could be relatively low.

*disclaimer - My primary area of expertise is not contract law.
Another Baylor lawyer checking in. This is a pretty accurate description of the basic concepts surrounding liquidated damages clauses. The only thing that I would add is that the "reasonableness" of the liquidated damages clause is not based on the actual harm that did happen. As mentioned above, Maryland leaving the conference probably didn't do much, if any, actual harm to the remaining members of the ACC and the ACC itself. However, that doesn't matter as much for a liquidated damages clause. All that matters is that the amount of the liquidated damages clause be reasonable at the time that it is created. That's why the ACC put Paragraphs 22 and 23 in the Complaint. They are trying to show that the amount was reasonable based on the consistently changing landscape of college football, and they are showing that, historically (when the danger and potential harm was lower) the number was lower, but that things have changed and created the potential for more harm.

The critical facts are going to be:

1. Whether or not the ACC could have easily brought another school in to replace a leaving member (keep in mind, the timeframe we are working with is not when Maryland left and Louisville quickly stepped in but is actually when the exit fee was voted on and adopted). If it was pretty clear (at the time of the adoption of the exit fee) that the ACC would be able to cherry pick another roughly equivalent school to fill their roster if one of the schools left, then it's hard to argue that the ACC reasonably thought that they would suffer damages that are as significant enough to charge a school $52 mil to leave.

2. The value of the TV contract at the time the 3x OB exit fee was voted vs. the value of the TV contract the last time an exit fee was voted on (probably the 1.25x OB exit fee). If the number for the former is MUCH larger (disclosure, I don't know much about the ACC contract) than the latter, then it could easily be argued that the potential for harm dramatically increased and necessitated a larger liquidated damages clause. If, however, the numbers were the same or close to the same, it's very hard to argue that the potential harm increased dramatically. As an additional note, this would go for all revenue streams the ACC has, but I used the TV contract because it is probably one of the largest revenue streams, and possibly the one that changed the most in the timeframe (again, I do not know much about the specifics of the ACC TV contract).

There are probably some other factors that are critical, but off the top of my head, that's the basic stuff. If I have some time this weekend, I might be able to revisit this and flesh it out a little more.

[swarthmoreCY]

Don't forget rule number 1 about conference realignment: it is all about the money. We would add FSU and Clemson to the Big 12 if it makes us more money. It does that by adding more sexy matchups that TV networks are willing to pay big money for. Nobody is going to be willing to pay more for games with ACC and Big East leftovers. If games with those schools were worth any money, they wouldn't be leftover when the Big 12, B1G, and SEC expand. Plus, what motivation would we have to subsidize those programs left behind? We don't need to do that to appease FSU and Clemson. They don't have any leverage in this deal. They have to come on board if they want to stay relevant, they have nowhere else to go.

I am unsure how you are struggling with such a simple concept. You are connecting a scheduling alliance with the leftovers with impacting the new Big 12 TV payout. It would not. Not anymore than ISU's scheduling agreement with Iowa.

The Big 12 adds FSU and Clemson because the Big 12 needs to add top programs outside its footprint, and they are likely the only two we can get that do that and add more money. It is about the money. That is why instead of adding 4 more ACC teams to reach 16, the Big 12 stops at 12.

However, there will still be OOC games. Even you can understand that, right? Having a scheduling agreement with 1 of those games being against an ACC-Big East school brings more money and needed east exposure than games against FCS or MAC schools. The opportunity cost is minimal, and if it helps get FSU and Clemson make the first move, it makes sense to agree to it. Plus, you cannot being thinking only one move out. The Big 12's only chance at getting additional prime ACC schools, ones that also keep the $$/school number at least static, is to get FSU and Clemson first.

[Triggermv]

http://collegesportsinfo.com/confere...lignment-grid/

Updated 17 Jan 13.

This link isn't working for me.

[Wesley]

This link isn't working for me.

Try now. It finally worked again. It had a database error for a bit.

[aeroclone]

I am unsure how you are struggling with such a simple concept. You are connecting a scheduling alliance with the leftovers with impacting the new Big 12 TV payout. It would not. Not anymore than ISU's scheduling agreement with Iowa.

The Big 12 adds FSU and Clemson because the Big 12 needs to add top programs outside its footprint, and they are likely the only two we can get that do that and add more money. It is about the money. That is why instead of adding 4 more ACC teams to reach 16, the Big 12 stops at 12.

However, there will still be OOC games. Even you can understand that, right? Having a scheduling agreement with 1 of those games being against an ACC-Big East school brings more money and needed east exposure than games against FCS or MAC schools. The opportunity cost is minimal, and if it helps get FSU and Clemson make the first move, it makes sense to agree to it. Plus, you cannot being thinking only one move out. The Big 12's only chance at getting additional prime ACC schools, ones that also keep the $$/school number at least static, is to get FSU and Clemson first.

You are ignoring a couple key points in this scenario. Number 1 is that FSU and Clemson have no leverage. We don't have to do anything to convince them to make the move. If expansion continues, their league (which is already 5th in the pecking order) is going to crumble underneath their feet. The SEC and B1G aren't interested. To FSU and Clemson, the Big 12 is the last life boat on the Titanic.

Second, after all this shakes out, a scheduling agreement with the ACC adds no value because the future ACC won't be much better than the MAC. After all of this is done there will be the big 4 football conferences, and then everyone else. If we wanted to lock in a major scheduling deal with somebody, it would be one of the other three. A Big 12 vs SEC or Big 12 vs Pac 12 challenge would be way more beneficial to us than Big 12 vs remaining ACC/Big East schools that weren't good enough to get invited to the Big 12, B1G, or SEC.