The point is that they're getting so much from TV and ticket sales that they can afford to lose donations and still not cut back.
Realignment Megathread (All The Moves)
- Thread starter ISUcyclones11
- Start date
The point is that they're getting so much from TV and ticket sales that they can afford to lose donations and still not cut back.
In my opinion, I think KU offers the B1G (they can create regional rivalries as they competitively fit in with the other west football teams
) more than UO and UW. But I'm not sure they are above a cutoff line though.Endowments are for very specific purposes and can’t be simply dipped into. They have very strict rules attached.
As it was pointed out there is no reason to dip in even if it was an option thanks to the new media deals. Unless you’re donating enough to get a name on a facility most are better off just donating to NIL for athletics. Now some schools require certain donation levels for tickets and access in general so it’s not all going away but for many it will.
Everyone has an opinion but I think you are very off on this one. They have a horrific football program in a small population state that is declining in population every year. Add in that they would be second lowest school from an academics standpoint (only Nebraska is lower) and you essentially have a non starter.In my opinion, I think KU offers the B1G (they can create regional rivalries as they competitively fit in with the other west football teams
Washington is in a growing state, great football program, and excellent academics. Oregon is similar with lower academics but an insanely good football program plus the direct Nike ties.
Well before the new big ten deal was being signed Kansas came calling and the big ten told them there was no way.
Guarantee the schools will find a way to apply NIL donations to seating perks. Those donations over the years weren't for charity. Those donors will want their benefits from their giving.
Always nice to have you stop in and put the B12 schools in their place as you see it. Anyway: https://spotify.link/C37VSbRxmyb
Endowment funds typically come with a very rigid set of restrictions in terms of when they can be accessed, by whom, and for what purpose. A certain % of a school's endowment often is in the form of property and real estate that's been bequeathed by big alumni/donors and isn't liquid or easily convertible. Even during Covid, schools took massive losses and had to make serious cuts because they couldn't access endowments to offset those unprecedented hits to their budgets. So yeah, endowments are basically a d*ck measuring contest between guys who can't get it up.
This isn’t a knock on you in particular, but I find it quite arbitrary that conference affiliations from a century ago somehow are determining who has seats at the table. Then we hear from these schools that have seats at the table about who has or doesn’t have value. I’m sure this point has been made hundreds of times in this monster of a thread so I guess I’ll make it again.
We all have rooting interests and think our school is better than school XYZ down the road. Strip conference affiliation away from everyone and there’s around 10 programs that are elite and everyone else in the “Power 5” plus a few more have very few differences.
I’m fatigued by this ridiculous charade we are all playing. We’re just chess pieces being moved around by networks. It’s gross but none of us can seem to help ourselves.
End rant.
Feel free to correct me and say why Kansas has more value to the big ten than Washington and Oregon. You know the post I was responding to
Also if it really bothers you so much just put me on ignore
Last edited:
Yep totally agree! Some schools were born on third base and really lucked out. Some conferences have been run horribly (pac12) and are now paying the price for it.
I don’t think we’re chess pieces being moved around by the network anymore than any other sports league but I understand the feeling behind it. My schools have benefitted from it so that’s most likely why I feel that way though.
If the big10 was worried about academics they would not have signed up Nebraska.
Yeah Nebraska sticks out quite a bit but it was sold to the school presidents as a way to anchor the other division in football. As many on here had pointed out Nebraska was on the down turn from a football perspective but I don’t think many in the big ten thought they would be this level of trash. Chalk it up to arrogance thinking they would recover
It all depends on how basketball is viewed going forward. Basketball has essentially funded the rest of the NCAA making it much less valuable than it should be. If these leagues are serious about splitting away, the basketball tournament could become just as big of a financial boon as the CFP.
To put it in perspective on how the NCAA has screwed basketball schools.
CBS TV deal - $1.1B annually
Payout per unit (1 unit paid per team for each game played): $338,000 x 6 years per unit = $2.03M
x 67 units in each tournament = $136M paid to conferences of the participating teams.
So the NCAA keeps roughly $1B annually and that's not including the ticket sales. Where since the football playoffs are separate from the NCAA, all that profit goes to the conferences, making football more valuable than basketball. And also why I doubt the NCAA tournament makes it to the end of the contract in 2032.
So if basketball is pushed to follow the football financial plan, suddenly a basketball school like Kansas starts to make more sense for a conference to covet.
Totally agree with this! I don’t think basketball numbers for conference play will ever really move the needle due to ratings but the tournament does extremely well.
On the March madness thread someone posted the ratings for the first week of the tourney and they were very large. Top game had over 10mil viewers (second place was right behind that) which would put them even or higher then all the P5 championship games and it would have been the 6th highest rated game of the season.
Considering how much networks are paying for big ten football games the tournament is insanely undervalued.
If the Big Ten wanted Washington or Oregon they would be joining the league along with USC and UCLA, that alone speaks volumes. The B10 is looking East not West, they want the ACC schools to continue to build their East coast presence.
They also can be choosy about which schools they take, so they are in no hurry to rush out and land Washington and Oregon.
That might have been then, but now look at the possibility that has unfolded of adding Oregon/Washington at a highly diluted share for 5 years or whatever until the next TV contract comes up. Things change, opportunities present themselves and what was once not on the table quickly gets back on the table when the money flips.
What has changed for the B10, nothing that I can see? Oregon and Washington want to go there, but they have no say in in the matter, the ball is in the B10 court and they, like always are going to do what is best for their league. If that means waiting for the ACC teams to come free, they are willing to do it. Just where are Oregon and Washington going to go and get even half the money that the B10 can offer? Stay in the P12 or jump to the B12 at 32 million or less per year?
At even $50 million per year, are the two P12 teams worth the chance to not get a UNC or UVA, which also strengthens their hold on the East Coast? Oregon and Washington are going nowhere, the Big 10 knows that, and they are in no hurry to invite them. So, unless the SEC starts making noise, they will stay where they are.
One of Iowa's big donors is a casino. They have gave to Iowa for years.
