I think Michigan is acting on principle. Not USC.
It is mentioned as plain as you can see when he refers to the value of the USC brand four times and the “unequal” distribution twice in two paragraphs.
Last edited:
Realignment Megathread (All The Moves)
- Thread starter ISUcyclones11
- Start date
It is mentioned as plain as you can see when he refers to the value of the USC brand four times and the “unequal” distribution twice in two paragraphs.
I've been pretty consistent that it was media only. You can find all those quotes back in this cesspool of a thread somewhere.
Yep that’s how all these convos started. Since thing things that were never really discussed in those early days like a rapidly expanding college playoff and stupid things like PE are relatively newer discussion points.
No offense Spartan, but who really cares where the money actually comes from? The bottom line is some teams are going to benefit financially, more than others. And the current gossip seems to be PE. This will create an unfair advantage. Well, actually, widen that advantage. All pro sports have parity built into the system. There's a reason for that. Right now this whole thing is a snow-globe. It'll be interesting to see where (or if) it settles.
Zero offense taken.
Because one is baked in and one is performance, speaking about paying programs more for post season performance not the PE thing which is a whole separate issue.
Looking at the 2025 season as an example Indiana would get a playoff share while Penn state and most likely Michigan won’t. That’s totally fine, they did it on the field and deserve it. With the unequal media dollars Penn State would be making more regardless of what they actually do on the field. This is something that people have a problem with especially as football is cyclical.
Oh, I am sure you probably were, but there were others on here that started out that it would never happen. Just others saying the pac12 would never break up and those teams would never be added to the B1G.
There are people on here that throw the word "NEVER" around too much, and many times they are proven wrong in a very short amount of time.
I still say Revenue is revenue.
In the end, they will total it all up media, playoffs etc all included and say. OSU got this much, Iowa got this much, MSU got this much and so on. Just like they always do. Sure you can break it all down into where it comes from, but the number broadcast will be the total each receives, and that is what I am talking about, in the end Revenue is Revenue and it doesnt matter where it comes from, if it is distributed unequally then it is Unequal, regardless how you try to spin it. In the end the total distributions will be unequal.
You got me on the LA teams for sure, had that one way wrong.
I fundamentally view baked in revenue differences as different then “earned” revenue differences. I’ll keep using Penn state vs Indiana because Indiana’s program has been a joke forever while Penn state has been in the upper tier pretty consistently. If Penn State got more money this year from the conference just for being Penn State that is a problem. By allowing teams to get more based on performance that’s a level playing field with a set standard.
To me that’s the big difference. Nothing with ratings or brands it’s an on field performance thing. I also wouldn’t want that part to be some insane number but I think there’s a lot of room to make that work for football playoffs and NCAA production.
Yep, if that got changed and a portion of that got broken out to the participating schools so they got more no one would really be upset
Smaller scale admittedly but I guess I'm just used to The Valley where what media revenue there is (~$400k per school) gets divided equally and the team(s) that earn the bids/shares from the NCAA Tournament get a larger percentage of the payout. Just seems fair....
Sounded like you were saying it was unequal. Sorry o read it wrong.
In these discussions it was about revenue in general, NOT just media revenue. It was always about total revenue in the beginning, it only started to be only about media or whatever as it started to look like the B1G actually was looking at unequal distributions, and that was only to hedge peoples bets on the issue.
How ever you want to spin it, unequal distribution is unequal distribution. It really doesnt matter where the money is coming from or how it is being sliced up for what reason or the other, if they are giving more to one school than another because "reasons" it is unequal and has a tendency to tear apart a conference from the inside.
Anyway these are a few that I found searching the first few pages of this thread.
You realize the quotes you are posting are literally talking about media revenue in the Big12 right? I’m not sure how clearer I could say it. At the time 3 years ago PE wasn’t even being considered in a serious way and we were still years away from the expanded playoff. It was legit only talking about media deals as that’s the only thing we were discussing then.
Problem is, that also keeps the haves the haves and the have nots the have nots.
So OSU because they have more in everything is able to put a better team on the field every year, and because they have unequal revenue, they get more to maintain that spot, and keep everyone else down. So the teams like say Northwestern have to catch lightning in a bottle and be a Cinderella story to have a chance to break through.
Unequal revenue in any form, tends to be a way to keep the power, control and money in the same hands every year. And to handicap those others into being just cannon fodder.
A team like OSU getting more year after year, because of "performance" is just another way to say because they have the biggest brand without actually saying it. And it makes sure they continue to be that brand. Pretty easy to win the race when you are able to afford Ferraris while the rest only get used pintos, which means you 9 times out of 10 will be able to continue affording the best and keeping everyone else down.
Every time I talked about it, I did not differentiate total revenue from media, at least not in the way you are saying. It has always been about total revenue. As a matter of fact I in many cases laid out calculations of total revenue for the B12 and how total revenue would shake out.
I have always considered total revenue, in all things, as we have talked here about many types of revenue streams.
You for one I am pretty sure said the the B10 would never even consider PE, and here we are.
It’s not at all about the brand, it’s about the performance. Come on you have to get that with this logic. Penn state doesn’t have a coach, they could very well struggle to find one the way Michigan did, the way Florida has, you name it. OSU is on an unprecedented tear but the other programs are pretty cyclical.
Again, it’s why it’s ok because then you get Penn state and Michigan on the sidelines while Indiana is in. Every school has the opportunity.
Yep I did say the big ten never would do PE and when I said that I used Michigan as an example, same for the super league. And here we are.
If PE goes through, I’ll eat crow but right now it’s looking increasingly unlikely (thank god) and I hope it doesn’t happen even if it is just a retirement fund and not a traditional PE group.
I struggle to see how this is a good deal for Big10 schools. It's hard to find exact details of the proposal, but from what I've read this is my understanding:
- Cal Investments is going to pay Big10 Enterprises $2.4B upfront and Big10 Enterprises is going to pay Cal Pension back principal & interest.
- Cal Investments is also going to get a 10% equity stake in Big10 Enterprises.
- Big10 Schools are being asked to extend their GOR from 2036 to 2046.
- The Big10 Conference Office and all participating schools will receive a share of the $2.4B capital infusion.
- Reports are:
- Ohio State, Michigan & Penn State will each receive $190M
- Oregion & USC will each receive $140-$150M
- The remaining 13 schools will each receive $100-110M
- Over leveraged,
- Have no experience in cost containment
- Are struggling to pay the House Settlement liability
- Trying to find ways to fund their in-house NIL collective
- Why would the Big10 agree to pay Cal Investments back principal and interest plus give up a 10% equity stake? It's not like there's much risk of Big10 media rights revenue going down and not paying Cal Investments back.
- If Cal Investments was willing to give Big10 Enterprises $2.4B when all 18 schools were in play and is still willing to give the Big10 $2.4B without USC & Michigan- sounds like Cal Investments knows it has plenty of upside (aka they got the better end of the deal).
- If Cal Investments is willing to do the deal, why wouldn't each Big 10 school's Endowment management team be willing to structure a similar deal? Keep the interest & equity in-house per se.
- If USC & Michigan don't participate, can they separately negotiate their own PC deal?
- Sure $110-$190M sounds like a lot upfront, but I imagine most schools will spend that money in the next 5-10 years. So where do the Big10/Little13 schools turn next to fund: Facilities, House Settlement & NIL?
The point is, those with the most will most of the time have the best, "performance". And those with less will most of the time be the ones without.
Like I said if you can buy the best players, have the best of everything, in most cases you will remain the "best" so you will have the "best performance" and stay there.
No matter how you swing it, unequal revenue distribution is designed to keep those with the money and power, exactly that, and those without, as exactly that, cannon fodder.
