Teams
Forum List
Toggle sidebar

Cracks in the B1G?

FriendlySpartan said:
Actually I’m asking him to clarify his position, same for you as well. If a fundamental crux of your argument is the threat to leave the question needs to be answered, well, where will they go?
Click to expand...
I don't understand why you are adamant a super league wouldn't possibly form. The Big 10 is at 18 teams right now. So why couldn't a 20 team super league form?

Ultimately, it could form. And only the threat of it forming is the leverage these teams need to persuade the Illinois/Minnesota's of the league to agree to unequal revenue sharing.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: LincolnSwinger, 1SEIACLONE, SolterraCyclone and 2 others
DesertClone1 said:
It's going to be:
Ohio State
Oregon
Penn State
Michigan
USC if they ever get their **** together and the rest fighting for scraps. Which leads me to my next question... is Indiana, Iowa, Purdue going to sit around and take a lot less? methinks not. Yormark better be waiting.
Click to expand...
The lower tier Big 10 schools’ identity is wrapped up in being part of a superior conference.

They’ll go 3-9 at Big 12 prices forever in order to pound their chest about being in the Big 10, and the powers know it.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: VeloClone, StPaulCyclone, ribsnwhiskey and 4 others
Cyhig said:
I don't understand why you are adamant a super league wouldn't possibly form. The Big 10 is at 18 teams right now. So why couldn't a 20 team super league form?

Ultimately, it could form. And only the threat of it forming is the leverage these teams need to persuade the Illinois/Minnesota's of the league to agree to unequal revenue sharing.
Click to expand...

They haven’t gone through this before but they will when there are no more profitable expansion candidates. Some arrogant programs might support unequal not realizing they aren’t the big wig. That’s what happened in big 12.

The threat of super league doesn’t need to be air tight, it would be enough for the money programs to just have some meetings, especially with sec teams. Poorhouse programs will gladly vote for unequal.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: LincolnSwinger and Cyhig
The other reason I feel the article is misleading is sources of the TV money.

The Big10's current TV deal for ALL SPORTS averages $1.1B annually. The ESPN extension to televise the 12 team CFP was worth $1.3B annually. For 11 games!!!!

So the real money is in the playoffs. So when the Big10 and SEC are pushing for more auto qualifiers, it's because they want their conferences to get a vastly bigger share of that $1.3B than the Big12, ACC & G5 schools.

So the obvious next step is schools like Ohio State, Michigan, Georgia, Alabama, etc. are going to want unequal revenue sharing of the CFP money. And be willing to equally share the core Big10/SEC TV money.

And I don't think most schools in the Big10, SEC (or even Big12) will have an issue where teams that make the Playoffs get a bigger share than the teams that don't. Maybe we see a formula where something like 80% is split evenly among conference members, while the other 20% of a conferences CFP TV money goes only to the teams that make the playoff and is distributed based on how far the schools advance.

It wouldn't surprise me if a similar change is made with NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament media money.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: 1UNI2ISU and FriendlySpartan
isucy86 said:
The other reason I feel the article is misleading is sources of the TV money.

The Big10's current TV deal for ALL SPORTS averages $1.1B annually. The ESPN extension to televise the 12 team CFP was worth $1.3B annually. For 11 games!!!!

So the real money is in the playoffs. So when the Big10 and SEC are pushing for more auto qualifiers, it's because they want their conferences to get a vastly bigger share of that $1.3B than the Big12, ACC & G5 schools.

So the obvious next step is schools like Ohio State, Michigan, Georgia, Alabama, etc. are going to want unequal revenue sharing of the CFP money. And be willing to equally share the core Big10/SEC TV money.

And I don't think most schools in the Big10, SEC (or even Big12) will have an issue where teams that make the Playoffs get a bigger share than the teams that don't. Maybe we see a formula where something like 80% is split evenly among conference members, while the other 20% of a conferences CFP TV money goes only to the teams that make the playoff and is distributed based on how far the schools advance.

It wouldn't surprise me if a similar change is made with NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament media money.
Click to expand...
Yep. And I think most if not all member schools would see this as fair.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: FriendlySpartan, 1UNI2ISU and isucy86
I’ve personally never really bought into the popular “super league” prophecy. Unequal revenue sharing was always more likely. They keep their weak links to get wins against, and make more money than them. No one wins in a super league. They alienate 3/4 of the college football fan base, as well as lose a lot of their own fans because it’s not as fun when you aren’t winning 9+ games almost every year anymore.
 
  • Like
Reactions: clonehome
It would be gutless to stab Purdue in the back, if they indeed go to the uneven revenue model. They were the ones who called the meeting to form the Big 10.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: amishclone
RustShack said:
I’ve personally never really bought into the popular “super league” prophecy. Unequal revenue sharing was always more likely. They keep their weak links to get wins against, and make more money than them. No one wins in a super league. They alienate 3/4 of the college football fan base, as well as lose a lot of their own fans because it’s not as fun when you aren’t winning 9+ games almost every year anymore.
Click to expand...
There's no way it would work.
 
  • Like
Reactions: clonehome
1UNI2ISU said:
I think they stay in the Big Ten. The league continues to split media revenues evenly because they are never going to have the votes to change that but they distribute a larger percentage of CFP, Bowl and NCAA Tournament money to the schools that earn the credits.

I expect the SEC to go to the same model.
Click to expand...
Yep that’s possible. Whether that’s material enough will probably depend on the next TV contract. Right now B10 schools make almost $21M per school per year from the CFP.

If schools not participating sacrifice say 50% of that to schools that are, and assuming B10 averages 4 playoff teams a year, that would be about +$26M bonus to playoff participants on top of what they currently make.

That could be enough to satisfy the power teams. The CFP contract will change too. I, personally, believe that $1.3B is an overpay. I know others disagree, but we’ll see how that shakes out in the next contract.

At its core though that is still unequal rev share
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Kinch and HFCS
SolterraCyclone said:
Yep that’s possible. Whether that’s material enough will probably depend on the next TV contract. Right now B10 schools make almost $21M per school per year from the CFP.

If schools not participating sacrifice say 50% of that to schools that are, and assuming B10 averages 4 playoff teams a year, that would be about +$26M bonus to playoff participants on top of what they currently make.

That could be enough to satisfy the power teams. The CFP contract will change too. I, personally, believe that $1.3B is an overpay. I know others disagree, but we’ll see how that shakes out in the next contract.

At its core though that is still unequal rev share
Click to expand...
Not really at its core because it’s just rewarding teams for good seasons. In an actual uneven revenue share that’s already baked in and won’t happen.

For example last year with paying the teams that make the playoff more Indiana would have gotten a bigger payout than Michigan or USC. That’s fair as they had the better year and deserved it. Similarly this year if Illinois makes it in over Michigan or USC they would deserve it as well. Same for any other school that went on a run.
 
FriendlySpartan said:
Not really at its core because it’s just rewarding teams for good seasons. In an actual uneven revenue share that’s already baked in and won’t happen.

For example last year with paying the teams that make the playoff more Indiana would have gotten a bigger payout than Michigan or USC. That’s fair as they had the better year and deserved it. Similarly this year if Illinois makes it in over Michigan or USC they would deserve it as well. Same for any other school that went on a run.
Click to expand...
Do other sports do it that way in the big 10?
 
SolterraCyclone said:
Yep that’s possible. Whether that’s material enough will probably depend on the next TV contract. Right now B10 schools make almost $21M per school per year from the CFP.

If schools not participating sacrifice say 50% of that to schools that are, and assuming B10 averages 4 playoff teams a year, that would be about +$26M bonus to playoff participants on top of what they currently make.

That could be enough to satisfy the power teams. The CFP contract will change too. I, personally, believe that $1.3B is an overpay. I know others disagree, but we’ll see how that shakes out in the next contract.

At its core though that is still unequal rev share
Click to expand...
I've been reliably told on this very board that all rights will triple if Cody Campbell gets his wet dream...:jimlad:

But seriously, I agree with you. I think the CFP was an overpay by ESPN for exclusivity and if the ratings stay in the same ball park for the duration of this contract that there won't be a huge increase in the next cycle and that's where PE gets in to feed the beast but that's a different discussion for a different time.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Cyclonsin and SolterraCyclone
Cyhig said:
I don't understand why you are adamant a super league wouldn't possibly form. The Big 10 is at 18 teams right now. So why couldn't a 20 team super league form?

Ultimately, it could form. And only the threat of it forming is the leverage these teams need to persuade the Illinois/Minnesota's of the league to agree to unequal revenue sharing.
Click to expand...

So if a 20 team Super League forms, what would the Playoff look like?

Like I mention in another post, the real money isn't the Big10 or SEC's media rights deals. The real money is the 12 team/11 game playoff. So if there is a 20-24 team Super League, there isn't really a need for a Conference Championship game or much beyond a 4 team playoff. That's a lot of lost TV money.

Plus why would TV Networks/Streaming platforms want a League that doesn't have teams in a number of very large media markets? And also alienates fans at schools left out. As an ISU fan, I wouldn't watch the Super League. And there are a lot of alumni at 40+ other P4 schools that won't watch a Super League as well.

I already do that today. It's not zero, but I can find enough solid Big12 match-ups & Notre Dame games that my viewership of Big10 & SEC games is already much, much lower than historically.
 
I've been saying it for years and it's the only way I see this ending. Divide the FBS teams into 4 quadrants (conferences) that make geographical sense, they can be reviewed annually and adjusted for parity if needed.

Each team makes their own schedule the first 3 weeks, patsies and rivalry games get played here. The rest of the season schedule is only home or away. After week one a committee will come out with the week 4 matchups. 1-0 play 1-0 and 0-1 play 0-1. This continues weekly until a championship game at the end (no rematches). The winning team of each quadrant go to a playoff. Each team keeps most of the TV revenue for the level of matchup they play.

This allows for teams to cycle up and down and gives every team a shot.
 
  • Optimistic
Reactions: ISUalways
isucy86 said:
So if a 20 team Super League forms, what would the Playoff look like?

Like I mention in another post, the real money isn't the Big10 or SEC's media rights deals. The real money is the 12 team/11 game playoff. So if there is a 20-24 team Super League, there isn't really a need for a Conference Championship game or much beyond a 4 team playoff. That's a lot of lost TV money.

Plus why would TV Networks/Streaming platforms want a League that doesn't have teams in a number of very large media markets? And also alienates fans at schools left out. As an ISU fan, I wouldn't watch the Super League. And there are a lot of alumni at 40+ other P4 schools that won't watch a Super League as well.

I already do that today. It's not zero, but I can find enough solid Big12 match-ups & Notre Dame games that my viewership of Big10 & SEC games is already much, much lower than historically.
Click to expand...
One word: Money

TV networks want prime matchups week in and week out. The viewership for these games are very high. Texas-OSU drew 16 million viewers. Now imagine matchups like this for each time slot.

Let's be honest... the TV networks are driving the realignment. If they feel they can consistently get many more eyeballs week in and week out and for longer stretches of the day, they'll find ways to do it
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Help Support Us

Become a patron
Top Bottom