Interesting that cracks are really showing in the B10 for the first time. If Michigan and USC don’t agree to the grant of rights for an extra 10 years I wonder if they can get out of it if they want to start a super league in that time period?
Realignment Megathread (All The Moves)
- Thread starter ISUcyclones11
- Start date
I never thought I'd say this, but good job Michigan and USC. I say this knowing they aren't doing this because they suddenly found some altruism. Regardless, anything to keep PE or whatever this deal is out of the mix is a good thing.
Another reason here as to why CBS got royally effed in their B10 deal:
Saturday's Hawkeyes' 2:30 p.m. CT game against the Trojans will be televised by Big Ten Network. The Big Ten Conference matchup had previously been designated as "CBS or Big Ten Network." It was announced Sunday that Iowa vs. USC will be shown on BTN. Penn State vs. Michigan State will be the 2:30 CBS game on Nov. 15.
How does CBS end up with PSU vs MichSt when USC is clearly still in CFP contention?
Pretty easily.
Every Big Ten team has to appear on BTN at least twice and one of those has to be a league game. USC and Iowa have both yet to meet that requirement. They're killing two birds with one stone there plus USCs last two games are Oregon and UCLA which are going to be appealing to the other nets.
The other option was locking USC/UCLA into BTN when it could end up a much bigger game than Iowa. Had Iowa beaten Oregon Saturday, it changes the calculus and USC/Iowa would've been on CBS.
Just because CBS had a bargain on a really old sweetheart deal with the SEC (signed in 2011) doesn't mean they're getting screwed in this deal. The game has shifted and inflation is a thing.
Good explanation but they still got royally effed by Fox with that BTN requirement which of course is primarily owned by Fox.
We are all well aware that CBS had a sweetheart deal with the SEC. The more relevant comparison now is that CBS would have got far more bang for the buck by engaging with the B12 on their top GOTW to replace the SEC instead of getting effed like they have with Fox and the B10.
That is what I am noticing too. It’s not just UM and USC, but also five university trustees organizations have filed complaints too. The problems we had with Texas are now getting replicated in the Big 10. Imagine that.
That’s a massive stretch considering this is actually Michigan and USC trying to save their conference members from themselves.
The more pushback this gets the more unlikely it happens.
Truthfully a bigger reason for this is the major optics from a university helping to support the AD anymore in 2025 and beyond. Just about every major university (Michigan included) had to cut jobs, lay off staff and cut programs due to federal funding cuts. That makes the optics of a school cutting a check to the AD pretty bad when actual academic positions are going away.
Without those cuts I don’t know how far this conversation goes with the push back coming from those two schools.
I wouldn’t say that. The Big12 bowed to Texas wishes because everyone was afraid to step up to them. What ever Texas wanted, was usually for their benefit ( and Oklahoma) and everyone else was ok with that so long they got a share of the media value. If Texas didn’t get what they wanted, they threatened to leave and, at the time, the others thought that would destroy the conference and relegate them to a non-power conference. And they were almost right.
This to me is different as they are not bullying anyone. To me the issue is that the conferences are big enough where trying to keep everyone in line is going to be harder.
Ohio State didn’t bully the little 14 into unequal revenue sharing? Ohio State got exactly what it wanted.
You need to read more. Here you go
They call it “unequal distribution”.
Sources: Big Ten execs pressing to make $2.4 billion investment deal — without Michigan and USC if needed
The Big Ten has signaled to those at Michigan and USC that it is moving forward with the deal, even delivering to each program an ultimatum with a deadline.
You mean the thing that hasn’t happened yet? Ok cool.You need to read more. Here you go
They call it “unequal distribution”.
Sources: Big Ten execs pressing to make $2.4 billion investment deal — without Michigan and USC if needed
The Big Ten has signaled to those at Michigan and USC that it is moving forward with the deal, even delivering to each program an ultimatum with a deadline.sports.yahoo.com
This isn’t unequal revenue sharing sharing this is a stupid deal with PE that shouldn’t happen. When the media deal changes, let me know
2.4Billion seems insanely high for only 5%. Pretty sure it be 10% and they’d get 2 seats
Eh, the optics of that are only negative north of about 35 degrees latitude.
4-5% figure I am talking about return on investment, not % ownership.
They could be putting up $2.4B in exchange for $130M per year in TV money for 20 years, for example.
This is unequal revenue sharing to the hilt and a payday loan for the little 14. Do you think Michigan and USC sign on?
I really hope not and I hope that there is enough legal action and pressure to stop it. Calling it a payday loan is extremely accurate
I would not classify the UC pension fund as PE. That's the definition of a passive investor really.
Just re-read the deal. The get 10% of Big Ten Enterprises. So I assume that is the conference TV and NCAA money conduit. So if they get $1B per year, UCI would get $100M annual - for as long as it lasts. So they need at least 20 years to break even probably, that's a LONG time for them to be made whole. If the TV money goes away, or football gets banned due to CTE, et al - so they are taking some risk, kind of a lot for a pension fund given how much things have changed in the past 10 years alone.
The question to me for the B1G schools is - is it worth getting $150M now in exchange for 10% of your revenue (appx $10-15M) until the end of time? Man, they ought to be able to bond that cheaper, equity on those terms is not a great deal for the B1G schools, imho. I'd think a 9% coupon over 20 years would get a lot interest, and you don't lose your equity.
It IS kind of a payday loan. But most AD's are NOT CPA's, not business people, and don't understand finance at all - which is why they're buried in debt in the first place.
The first step Texas took was demanding the removal of partial qualifiers. That certainly was seen as saving the members from themselves. But, it also was Texas flexing their muscle for the first time and let them understand that they ruled the conference.
If UM and USC win this battle, while it is better for the conference, it will also be a major power flex by them. How will that affect the relationship with tOSU and PSU? Texas didn’t start out from day 1 running the conference. That power built bit by bit with the conference members caving until it was untenable for the conference to last. Whether that was scheduling to revenue to controlling game rights for their network. Each time the conference gave in, it was just another step.
