Cool, and as someone that went to both Michigan schools I can tell you with absolute certainty that Michigan doesn’t want to move into a super league and go 4-8 every year. Similar to many other power programs, they have all had down periods and the only reason they were able to climb back was due to not playing a super conference schedule. Bama wasn’t Bama for a long time, neither was Georgia, Michigan, etc.
Realignment Megathread (All The Moves)
- Thread starter ISUcyclones11
- Start date
Not smaller, the 2 late min adds won’t get a full share till the next contract. Maryland already is I think (could be wrong, know neb is) Rutgers similar to Maryland took huge loans from the conference so their circumstances are different then the pac schools
Yes, I’m fully aware of all that but that is the definition of a buy in rather an absolute unequal revenue share throughout the conference.They are only getting $30 million to start with, and do get a million dollar increase till the contract runs out in 29/30. More than what they would receive in the P12, but far behind the full share members.
Washington’s budget forecast provides clues to Big Ten revenue distributions as an 18-team conference
The West Coast quartet will join the Big Ten in 44 days. Thanks to a public presentation by one member of the group, we can sketch the financial benefits accompanying the move. Washington officials went before the university's board of regents last week with a proposed budget for the 2024-25...sports360az.com
I know you claim no other conference has had unequal rev sharing, and you claim no other will ever go to that. But I think you need to go back further and look at conferences in the 80s and before.
You also seem to deny that the ACC is pushing a move toward unequal revenue sharing, the Pac was entertaining it before they imploded. Will it ever work, I dont believe so, for a number of reasons.
But it just shows that conferences and more importantly the power hungry schools consider it all the time. I dont know if the P2 will ever go that route, partly because the entire system may be different in the future, but I am sure it has been a consideration and will continue to be until the system blows up completely.
You have to realize teams like Alabama, Georgia, Ohio St, Michigan etc, have some serious angst that they get the same pay as Northwestern, Vandy, Purdue, etc. It may never change, but they for sure have considered it.
Yeah It is kind of funny you dont count The B10 as having unequal revenue, when Nebby, Rutgers, Maryland, Oregon, Washington. All have had or have unequal revenue, for a considerable amount of time.
Just because they are new additions, and just because they put a timeline on their revenue, still makes it Unequal revenue sharing. Hell some of these have had unequal revenue through multiple tv contracts.
As an alum of Michigan as well I can tell you that this has never once come up at all. The school already has more money than they know what to do with. Never heard it from the few OSU alums I know either. It’s just not something that comes up when you’re already raking it in unless your Texas with an inferiority complex
USC and UCLA did not buy in, they started out as full share members. The value of both Washington and Oregon is worth a lot more than many in the league currently. That is why I stated "pennies on the dollar"
I guess in my mind it’s not built in it’s just new members. They all have a path for full shares as well. In my mind it’s different than unequal revenue streaming built in. Plus Maryland got a 120 million dollar loan from the conference and Rutgers got 50mil, they are very happy with their circumstances and Nebraska is getting a full share.
Just because students/fans dont think it will happen. Does not mean the conference and the schools actual powers are not considering/discussing it.
Do you know everything these people are discussing..... you said they would never add PAC schools too, and look where we are. It seems to me you and other fans dont really know what is being discussed behind closed doors by the people that actually make the decisions.
While that may be true for Michigan, however money talks and we’ve seen this played out before. Oklahoma, Texas, USC, Oregon, etc, each gave up easier paths to the playoffs for more money. (Granted, Texas was a historic underachiever most years in the Big 12.)
So you’re saying Oregon and Washington bought in at a reduced rate for the current contract unlike USC and UCLA who are getting paid in full right away?
You brought up the money comment and I can tell you with 100% certainty that this topic is never broached at Michigan, can’t speak for other schools but the school has more money then they know what to do with.
How long did Nebby go until they got that full share.
The others got big loans, correct. But the money they got was not just reduced by their payments on those loans, they got a reduced share, plus a payment towards said loan.
You can argue semantics all you want. But teams getting reduced share, is unequal revenue.
A lot of these schools are happy to get what they get. In the Big 12, most were just fine with any form of unequal revenue too. But you also have to understand true unequal revenue sharing was decades ago, in the 80s and before. The only thing that was unequal in the B12 was Tier 3, because at that time it was not included in the TV contract. Schools were free to negotiate that on their own and get what they could. That was not the conference distributing unequal amount, the conference still distributed an equal amount, because they didnt hold the Tier 3 rights. This is similar to Iowa State getting $X for putting Mid american energy on their big screen, to what Texas can get to put a sponsor on theirs. The conference is not making those distributions, they are negotiated and paid outside the media contract.
I’ll defer that to you as it was way before I was born and personally think it has nothing to do with modern football. But you’re technically correct which is the best kind of correct
Well, you claim the B12 had unequal revenue sharing. And it didnt, so.....
The Tier 3 was not unequal revenue sharing, because the conference did not distribute that revenue. The conference did not hold those contracts to distribute that money. The distribution from the conference was equal.
The only true unequal revenue sharing happened Decades ago, in the time you say you dont care about and has nothing to do with modern football.
Yep. It’s not being discussed because they don’t have to discuss it yet. But come the next TV contract, if they are looking at less dollars per team, you bet your ass they will be discussing things.
Are these schools making a fortune? Yes. But by and large, it’s not like they’re putting some of these dollars away for a rainy day. They’re spending all of the annual revenue and, for many schools, they’re spending more than all.
So, if/when the day comes that TV revenue goes down (which it will), all schools will be looking at budget cuts. Shoot the added expense of $20M per year to pay players is enough for ADs to **** their pants.
When that day comes, and Michigan has to decide between cutting budget to maintain equal rev share in the B10 or join a Super League so their revenue will increase, well…
And even if Michigan was to hold true at first, and say “no we don’t want to join a Super League. It’s not in the sport’s best interests” what happens when Texas and USC and Oklahoma, and Penn State, and all of these others blue bloods who have already shown they prioritize money over all else. What happens when they join this league.
Then it’s not even about what Michigan wants to do. It’s what they have to do to survive.
Bold of you to assume Oklahoma stays relevant in the SEC enough to have a voice lol
