There is no 2.1 multiplier for OU and Texas. Technically, they had to pay an $80MM exit fee per school as well as one year of media rights. They negotiated it down to $50MM total per school, covering the exit fee and media rights (including reversing the Texas home and home with Michigan to be at Michigan next year instead of at Texas- due to Fox wanting that). The Big12 did not have to negotiate the dollars down, especially to that level.
I do agree that the ACC schools looking to leave will have a huge amount that they would have to pay, though it would be an exit fee plus the media rights for the remainder of the contract. I don't think it would be near $1B though. More like half of that.
As explained previously, OU and UT believes there 99 year commitment was not a valid contract. HRE agrees to this point and so does the article you linked in the previous post. As such, the exit was null and void. The cost of getting out was valued at more that two years ' TV revenue, thus the multiplier.
Note: the payout from TV rights does NOT include other monies paid out. Bowl money is earned each year and is not added. Hoops hoops tourney credits are not added as the conference receives those monies whether a team stays or goes unless the team is independent.
It does not matter how the money is "broken out". Since the teams argued the exit fee was bogus, the only substantive factor was TV revenue, which was roughly a little over $20MM/year at that time. If you prefer to argue the exit fee was valid, then shift money over to that column. Either way, you still get to double plus the TV revenue.
Don't be confused by cherry picking a writer's cherry picked comments. If OU and UT were willing to fight over the $80MM exit fee, they would have. OU and UT were willing to forego two years' TV money to get out one year early. Otherwise they could have waited one more year and forced the B12 to sue for the exit fee. Contractually, OU and UT were in the stronger position on the exit fee. What could NOT be ignored was the GOR.
If it is as easy as you and HRE believe please explain why it was not done? Further, explain why HRE and you want FSU out easily and on the cheap.
I have offered a valid explanation that is in line with prior facts. I have held all along that a deal is possible but other factors must fall in line before a deal can occur. I have posted ACC and ESPN perspective to oppose any bargain basement agreement put forth by FSU and others on this site.
Facts:
FSU floated a $300MM offer to leave. FSU believes the GOR is more solid that HRE and you believe
FSU lacks the money to pay the $300MM, let alone any larger amount
Clemson wants more money
UNC wants more money
It is probably safe to assume all remaining ACC schools want more money
The ACC deal was negotiated when ACC teams were down
ACC teams are improving
There remain look-ins for ESPN to evaluate the deel
The GOR is solid (which is the opposite of what HRE has argued all along)
The ACCN makes money for both the ACC and ESPN
ESPN has no incentive to destroy the ACCN
ESPN would have to increase its payouts to cover the FSU and any other team that moves to the SEC, a bad business move
If a team moves from the ACC, the door is opened for Fox and any others to pick apart the ACC.
The moment a team can break the GOR, all GOR are rendered useless
Neither ESPN nor Fox want GORs to be rendered useless
The ACC will be in a stronger position for bargaining with stronger teams going forward.
The ACC has a huge audience base, it is now the undisputed largest audience base.
ESPN is more likely to ensure the ACC has a decent deal (Hint: they ensured the ACC deal was better than the B1G 12's deal at the time it was made, many lauded it as a very good deal), why destroy a profit center, lose territory to a competitor and alienate a large portion of the population?
The ACC will make more money by waiting and improving it's product, consolidating it's fanbases and new markets in the mean time.
Please explain why you, HRE and others want FSU/Clemson/UNC to get out on the cheap. No one has proffered a valid basis for doing so. Many on here have asked and yet no one provides a valid response.
