Cracks in the B1G?
- Thread starter twojman
- Start date
Maybe the B!G West will be resurrected as a new league...Kirk would love it.
Why is Iowa different than anyone in the B12 or PAC that didn't get an invite to the B10 or SEC?
I'll agree it's a few years out, but the narrative begins now.
If I had gone to like the Colorado or Chicago Art Institute instead of ISU College of Design I'm probably either not a football fan or an NFL fan. It was such a part of my life those 4 years I couldn't turn it off if I tried.
The Big Ten and SEC are racing toward making that choice for tons of potential fans. Nobody is going to pick some random college in Alabama to cheer for instead of their closest NFL team. Drawing fans from 40 universities vs 140 is an unimaginably stupid strategy to shrink a sport.
Probably becuase people are losing there minds on here over a nothing quote, here it is exactly
“Asked whether that should translate into something different in terms of revenue share, Carter said:
“It doesn't matter what Ted Carter thinks. I think that's going to be a conversation that will be had over time.”
I wouldn’t expect any other answer from him. It’s not a demand or saying that conversations are in play or anything of the sort. It was answering a question that the reporter kept harping on to get any kind of quote.
I get the response on here but good luck. I’ll happily take any wagers going towards we will (min $50) that their won’t be any built in unequal revenue sharing from the media contract. Might be some unequal CFP distribution for the teams that get in but that’s beyond ok and I’m very much for that.
If Wisconsin is in it, maybe. I’ve always been more passionate about Iowa State than Wisconsin (where I have more of the “give it the old college try boys” mindset), and with all the changes in the sport recently my interest in the sport has really taken a hit.
If the only change was going to a super league and Wisconsin was in it I’d maybe watch. But I could easily see myself getting rid of my season tickets. If they aren’t in it, I won’t watch. Why would I?
And I’ve always said that I would prefer for Wisconsin to not make it
I have had discussions with posters on x who say the Iowa is a top 25 program last four years and will be on the good side of unequal sharing.
They have enough teams they could have relegation/promotion in Big Ten scheduling. That could be a way for unequal revenue where it's earned on field.
Yep. Just like last time there was all the talk about unequal media revenue sharing before they signed the existing $8 billion deal that distributes media revenue equally.
Iowa has 3 just million people and 62k pack a stadium in the same state that isn't Kinnick every Saturday.
Iowa might not even make top half of entire power 4 if we are talking just media money.
That’s cause they could grow revenue a satisfactory amount without having to do unequal rev sharing. We’ll see what happens next TV deal
If equal revenue sharing was such a core value of the conference, why weren’t Oregon and Washington cut in at a full rate?
Not to mention MBB, WBB, baseball were all on the rise our at the top. Tinfoil hat...the B12 had to be taken down a peg.
Because they didn’t want those two schools otherwise they would have grabbed them with the LA schools.
Also it’s how things worked in the past with Maryland and Rutgers before they moved to a full share.
First, I do agree with you that’s a nothing quote.
Second, the fact the question was asked, and that answer given, shows it’s been discussed. And several prominent CFB reporters, with more inside knowledge than me, interpreted it the same way.
Reporters ask questions all the time trying to get a story or a sound bite for clicks and engagement, appears to be working even with the non answer. He kinda even badgers him a bit before getting that non answer.
Also I can’t think of a better way to answer that question without making a side angry, it was a perfect split down the middle response
Most new members don't come in at a full cut. Nebraska didn't, Rutgers didn't, Maryland didn't. USC and UCLA did because USC is a blueblood and they added significant $$$ value to the media deal that was being negotiated. Oregon and Washington came in at the same reduced cut most other new members get, and then they phase up to a full cut over a matter of years. Nothing new.
Then why take them at all? If the B10 values equality across its membership (at least monetarily) why wouldn’t the schools shave a little off the top line to ensure all members are equal
Right, because equal revenue sharing isn’t a core value of the conference and won’t be when revenue growth dries up.
