Home
Articles
Photos
Interviews
Forums
New posts
Search forums
Georgia Tech Recruiting
Dashboard
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Chat
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Georgia Tech Athletics
Georgia Tech Football
Conference Realignment
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="CEB" data-source="post: 957559" data-attributes="member: 4905"><p>Maybe just sloppily written, but this blurb is interesting to me...</p><p></p><p>"For <strong>ESPN, the league would retain SMU’s broadcasting rights (it now owns the Mustangs' rights as part of the American Athletic Conference package)</strong> and regains the rights of Stanford and Cal.”</p><p></p><p>With all the talk of GOR and what it all means, this simple statement prompts a lot of questions. I did a very quick search for “AAC grant of rights” (almost all results were for ACC) <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite18" alt=":LOL:" title="Laugh :LOL:" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":LOL:" /> </p><p> </p><p>From what I can gather, the AAC did NOT adopt a GOR (although admittedly it looks like they should have gone through a more recent negotiation than what I saw). At any rate, the article states ESPN “owns” SMU’s rights. That would indicate there is some sort of GOR and the AAC/ ESPN still retains media rights to SMU upon their leaving for the ACC. </p><p></p><p>Also interesting to me is that the ESPN /ACC agreement “pro rata clause” that has been tossed about the internet would actually obligate ESPN to pay more money for a team they already “own” just because that team jumps to a new home. I understand that the AAC retains the rights and revenues of SMU (which are paid by ESPN) but then ESPN is also obligated to pay $24m+/- for tier 1 revenue when that same team goes to the ACC? Now ESPN is paying two conferences for the same team...</p><p></p><p>Got me thinking about this “pro rata clause” stuff....Does this prove to be a case study for some of the wild statements out of Tallahassee? If the Noles are willing to live on whatever revenue the BIG or SEC gets as part of a “pro rata clause,” they can pull an SMU, right? I don’t think that makes financial sense for them since they still have the exit fee hurdle, but the pro rata stuff makes this interesting...</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="CEB, post: 957559, member: 4905"] Maybe just sloppily written, but this blurb is interesting to me... "For [B]ESPN, the league would retain SMU’s broadcasting rights (it now owns the Mustangs' rights as part of the American Athletic Conference package)[/B] and regains the rights of Stanford and Cal.” With all the talk of GOR and what it all means, this simple statement prompts a lot of questions. I did a very quick search for “AAC grant of rights” (almost all results were for ACC) :LOL: From what I can gather, the AAC did NOT adopt a GOR (although admittedly it looks like they should have gone through a more recent negotiation than what I saw). At any rate, the article states ESPN “owns” SMU’s rights. That would indicate there is some sort of GOR and the AAC/ ESPN still retains media rights to SMU upon their leaving for the ACC. Also interesting to me is that the ESPN /ACC agreement “pro rata clause” that has been tossed about the internet would actually obligate ESPN to pay more money for a team they already “own” just because that team jumps to a new home. I understand that the AAC retains the rights and revenues of SMU (which are paid by ESPN) but then ESPN is also obligated to pay $24m+/- for tier 1 revenue when that same team goes to the ACC? Now ESPN is paying two conferences for the same team... Got me thinking about this “pro rata clause” stuff....Does this prove to be a case study for some of the wild statements out of Tallahassee? If the Noles are willing to live on whatever revenue the BIG or SEC gets as part of a “pro rata clause,” they can pull an SMU, right? I don’t think that makes financial sense for them since they still have the exit fee hurdle, but the pro rata stuff makes this interesting... [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
The 2014 ACC Football Championship was played in what city?
Post reply
Home
Forums
Georgia Tech Athletics
Georgia Tech Football
Conference Realignment
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top