And no doubt the ACC probably faces the same issue...from the article:

The Big 12's average payout to its full-sharing members in 2014-15 was $23.3 million, which was $9.4 million less than what SEC schools received from their conference.

The latest Big 12 tax return provided Wednesday to CBS Sports reflects the growing gap between the SEC and Big Ten compared to every other major conference. Not long ago, the SEC and Big 12 provided nearly identical payouts to their schools, past tax records show.

In 2012-13, the Big 12 distributed about $20.9 million to full-sharing members compared to the SEC's $20.8 million payout. The Big 12 distributed slightly more money in 2013-14 ($21.2 million) than the SEC ($21 million). But the first year of the SEC Network and new College Football Playoff deals shows the significant difference between the SEC and Big 12. (The Big Ten's latest financial records won't be released until the spring.)

While the Big 12 had no teams in the inaugural playoff, the SEC had one that was worth $6 million to the conference. In addition, the SEC put two teams into contracted CFP bowls that provided additional revenue.

Also, the SEC Network started printing millions of dollars for the SEC -- a revenue source that the Big 12 as a whole doesn't have. Individual Big 12 schools make additional money through third-tier media rights that aren't reflected in the Big 12 tax form. For instance, Texas reportedly received about $15 million from the Longhorn Network, and Kansas got more than $6 million and Kansas State about $4 million from their third-tier rights.

Even when factoring in these rights, most Big 12 schools are seeing a growing gap with SEC schools in revenue. The SEC pools third-tier TV rights together for the SEC Network. But SEC schools still have their own multi-media rights contracts not factored into their conference payout. For instance, Kentucky gets approximately $14 million per year from JMI Sports, and Alabama receives about $15 to $16 million annually from Learfield Sports.

“We're going to do everything we can to compete,” Big 12 commissioner Bob Bowlsby said about the growing gap. “That would certainly include financially.”

The Big 12 has been exploring expansion, a football conference championship game and a TV network potential bundled together with the Longhorn Network in an effort to generate more money. But the big question is what schools are available that would substantially increase the league's television rights value. Oklahoma president David Boren, who is pushing for expansion, told The Oklahoman this week that Big 12 presidents have agreed they need to decide by this summer whether to expand, create a championship game and/or start a network.


http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...in-2014-15

And the gap will only grow bigger and bigger. Over a 10 year period, there will be a gap of $100M+. It will be even larger than that when the B1G contract is done. People are now projecting $50M per school for the B1G because of the way they are going to go about it and the MI AD already hinted at some of the stuff.

That will be more than double the payouts the ACC schools get and that is why the B1G is going to end up expanding.

(02-21-2016 11:40 AM)Maize Wrote:  And no doubt the ACC probably faces the same issue...from the article:

This money gap with SEC will keep growing, and will get worse when the B1G signs its new deal.

Obviously, this is a major potential source of destabilization within the P5. Schools like FSU and Clemson are going to chafe worse and worse falling behind SEC rivals in the money race. Virginia and VT are not going to like watching the gusher of money headed Maryland's way. Ditto for Big 12 teams that have neighboring SEC and B1G schools, etc.

(02-21-2016 12:25 PM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  And the gap will only grow bigger and bigger. Over a 10 year period, there will be a gap of $100M+. It will be even larger than that when the B1G contract is done. People are now projecting $50M per school for the B1G because of the way they are going to go about it and the MI AD already hinted at some of the stuff.

That will be more than double the payouts the ACC schools get and that is why the B1G is going to end up expanding.

Yes, and with that money, the B1G isn't going to have to look at any G5 schools to expand. It, like the SEC, will be feasting on Big 12 and/or ACC schools.

It's easy for a UNC or UVA to say "we are ACC For Life, no interest in B1G or SEC" when the money gap is $5 million. But when it's $15 million per year, the tune may well change.

The PAC is likely protected by geography, but the Big 12 and ACC are under the gun.

Death spiral?

(02-21-2016 12:27 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Yes, and with that money, the B1G isn't going to have to look at any G5 schools to expand. It, like the SEC, will be feasting on Big 12 and/or ACC schools.

It's just as likely that given very high per-school payouts, the SEC and Big Ten won't have any expansion candidates that could increase those payouts (or even pay for themselves) unless they can acquire Texas, Notre Dame, or maybe North Carolina.

If you're distributiing $35-40 million per school per year, adding anyone other than one of those big kahunas is just going to decrease the per-school payouts. Also, adding tag-along schools in order to get one of those very few high-value schools would be counterproductive for the Big Ten or SEC. No chance of that happening.

The most practical, but cold, way for the other top P5 programs to increase their own media revenues, should they choose to pursue it, is to find a way to combine with each other while excluding as many of the less-valuable programs from their existing leagues as they can -- in other words, another combination along the lines of the "Big 8 plus SWC minus 4" move that formed the original Big 12 lineup.

I do wonder what's the pac 12 payout if they added OU, OK state, KU and K state? or OU, Ok state, Texas Tech and Houston or OU, Ok state, Texas Tech and give texas a deadline to move. I think the pac 12 could pull off all those moves if they were willing.

(02-21-2016 02:12 PM)bluesox Wrote:  I do wonder what's the pac 12 payout if they added OU, OK state, KU and K state? or OU, Ok state, Texas Tech and Houston or OU, Ok state, Texas Tech and give texas a deadline to move. I think the pac 12 could pull off all those moves if they were willing.

I think if the pac was adding schools form the big12 they wouldn't add two teams from the same state if they can try. Like how Iowa State would have a hard time getting into the big ten. Having both Kansas and k state don't add more TV sets.

After watching the Rams leave a billion dollar stadium deal in the trash in St Louis, I am convinced money rules all. Rivalries, locale, it makes no difference anymore... just money. I think the biggest earthquake ever is coming to CFB.

(02-21-2016 02:02 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(02-21-2016 12:27 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Yes, and with that money, the B1G isn't going to have to look at any G5 schools to expand. It, like the SEC, will be feasting on Big 12 and/or ACC schools.

It's just as likely that given very high per-school payouts, the SEC and Big Ten won't have any expansion candidates that could increase those payouts (or even pay for themselves) unless they can acquire Texas, Notre Dame, or maybe North Carolina.

If you're distributiing $35-40 million per school per year, adding anyone other than one of those big kahunas is just going to decrease the per-school payouts. Also, adding tag-along schools in order to get one of those very few high-value schools would be counterproductive for the Big Ten or SEC. No chance of that happening.

Agreed on that point: no tag-alongs will be coming.

(02-21-2016 02:29 PM)CyclonePower Wrote:  

(02-21-2016 02:12 PM)bluesox Wrote:  I do wonder what's the pac 12 payout if they added OU, OK state, KU and K state? or OU, Ok state, Texas Tech and Houston or OU, Ok state, Texas Tech and give texas a deadline to move. I think the pac 12 could pull off all those moves if they were willing.

I think if the pac was adding schools form the big12 they wouldn't add two teams from the same state if they can try. Like how Iowa State would have a hard time getting into the big ten. Having both Kansas and k state don't add more TV sets.

That is the problem with PAC 12 and Big 12 right now. They do have dead weights for tv viewership. Iowa does not need 2 P5 schools. One of them have to go, and Iowa State could get the axe. Same thing could happen to either Kansas or Kansas State. Oregon State and Washington State could be replaced by BYU and Boise State. Colorado State have the better product than Colorado, and the viewership.

Iowa State, Colorado, Oregon State, Washington State, Kansas, Purdue, Northwestern, Vanderbilt, Kentucky, Miami, NC State, and some others have not been on much for football games on OTA games. A lot of the top G5 schools have like Houston, BYU, Boise State, Memphis, UCF, USF, Northern Illinois, Toledo, Bowling Green, Ohio, and even North Dakota State is being shown on ESPN more often.

(02-21-2016 06:15 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(02-21-2016 02:29 PM)CyclonePower Wrote:  

(02-21-2016 02:12 PM)bluesox Wrote:  I do wonder what's the pac 12 payout if they added OU, OK state, KU and K state? or OU, Ok state, Texas Tech and Houston or OU, Ok state, Texas Tech and give texas a deadline to move. I think the pac 12 could pull off all those moves if they were willing.

I think if the pac was adding schools form the big12 they wouldn't add two teams from the same state if they can try. Like how Iowa State would have a hard time getting into the big ten. Having both Kansas and k state don't add more TV sets.

That is the problem with PAC 12 and Big 12 right now. They do have dead weights for tv viewership. Iowa does not need 2 P5 schools. One of them have to go, and Iowa State could get the axe. Same thing could happen to either Kansas or Kansas State. Oregon State and Washington State could be replaced by BYU and Boise State. Colorado State have the better product than Colorado, and the viewership.

Iowa State, Colorado, Oregon State, Washington State, Kansas, Purdue, Northwestern, Vanderbilt, Kentucky, Miami, NC State, and some others have not been on much for football games on OTA games. A lot of the top G5 schools have like Houston, BYU, Boise State, Memphis, UCF, USF, Northern Illinois, Toledo, Bowling Green, Ohio, and even North Dakota State is being shown on ESPN more often.

Anyone who thinks that flagships like Colorado will ever be dumped for the CSU's of the world is smoking some hard-core ish.

(02-21-2016 07:00 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-21-2016 06:15 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(02-21-2016 02:29 PM)CyclonePower Wrote:  

(02-21-2016 02:12 PM)bluesox Wrote:  I do wonder what's the pac 12 payout if they added OU, OK state, KU and K state? or OU, Ok state, Texas Tech and Houston or OU, Ok state, Texas Tech and give texas a deadline to move. I think the pac 12 could pull off all those moves if they were willing.

I think if the pac was adding schools form the big12 they wouldn't add two teams from the same state if they can try. Like how Iowa State would have a hard time getting into the big ten. Having both Kansas and k state don't add more TV sets.

That is the problem with PAC 12 and Big 12 right now. They do have dead weights for tv viewership. Iowa does not need 2 P5 schools. One of them have to go, and Iowa State could get the axe. Same thing could happen to either Kansas or Kansas State. Oregon State and Washington State could be replaced by BYU and Boise State. Colorado State have the better product than Colorado, and the viewership.

Iowa State, Colorado, Oregon State, Washington State, Kansas, Purdue, Northwestern, Vanderbilt, Kentucky, Miami, NC State, and some others have not been on much for football games on OTA games. A lot of the top G5 schools have like Houston, BYU, Boise State, Memphis, UCF, USF, Northern Illinois, Toledo, Bowling Green, Ohio, and even North Dakota State is being shown on ESPN more often.

Anyone who thinks that flagships like Colorado will ever be dumped for the CSU's of the world is smoking some hard-core ish.

Actually quo his entire list including schools like NC State, Kentucky, Purdue, Northwestern being about to be replaced by G5 schools is insane...

(02-21-2016 08:21 PM)Maize Wrote:  

(02-21-2016 07:00 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-21-2016 06:15 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(02-21-2016 02:29 PM)CyclonePower Wrote:  

(02-21-2016 02:12 PM)bluesox Wrote:  I do wonder what's the pac 12 payout if they added OU, OK state, KU and K state? or OU, Ok state, Texas Tech and Houston or OU, Ok state, Texas Tech and give texas a deadline to move. I think the pac 12 could pull off all those moves if they were willing.

I think if the pac was adding schools form the big12 they wouldn't add two teams from the same state if they can try. Like how Iowa State would have a hard time getting into the big ten. Having both Kansas and k state don't add more TV sets.

That is the problem with PAC 12 and Big 12 right now. They do have dead weights for tv viewership. Iowa does not need 2 P5 schools. One of them have to go, and Iowa State could get the axe. Same thing could happen to either Kansas or Kansas State. Oregon State and Washington State could be replaced by BYU and Boise State. Colorado State have the better product than Colorado, and the viewership.

Iowa State, Colorado, Oregon State, Washington State, Kansas, Purdue, Northwestern, Vanderbilt, Kentucky, Miami, NC State, and some others have not been on much for football games on OTA games. A lot of the top G5 schools have like Houston, BYU, Boise State, Memphis, UCF, USF, Northern Illinois, Toledo, Bowling Green, Ohio, and even North Dakota State is being shown on ESPN more often.

Anyone who thinks that flagships like Colorado will ever be dumped for the CSU's of the world is smoking some hard-core ish.

Actually quo his entire list including schools like NC State, Kentucky, Purdue, Northwestern being about to be replaced by G5 schools is insane...

That is the problem with the P5 and the old ways. The TV metrics don't work with those schools. Since Notre Dame is claiming the Chicago tv market? It hurts Northwestern and Northern Illinois to compete with them. Same with Purdue and Indiana. The value of the schools would be tv metrics and ratings wise which could shift the realignment big time. Why could schools like Iowa State or Washington State get tv money the same amount as Oregon, Oklahoma, Texas, Michigan, ohio State and so forth when the tv ratings for their football sucks big time, and get less airtime on tv. You get Boise State on tv more than Northwestern, Washington State and so forth.

(02-21-2016 08:31 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(02-21-2016 08:21 PM)Maize Wrote:  

(02-21-2016 07:00 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-21-2016 06:15 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(02-21-2016 02:29 PM)CyclonePower Wrote:  I think if the pac was adding schools form the big12 they wouldn't add two teams from the same state if they can try. Like how Iowa State would have a hard time getting into the big ten. Having both Kansas and k state don't add more TV sets.

That is the problem with PAC 12 and Big 12 right now. They do have dead weights for tv viewership. Iowa does not need 2 P5 schools. One of them have to go, and Iowa State could get the axe. Same thing could happen to either Kansas or Kansas State. Oregon State and Washington State could be replaced by BYU and Boise State. Colorado State have the better product than Colorado, and the viewership.

Iowa State, Colorado, Oregon State, Washington State, Kansas, Purdue, Northwestern, Vanderbilt, Kentucky, Miami, NC State, and some others have not been on much for football games on OTA games. A lot of the top G5 schools have like Houston, BYU, Boise State, Memphis, UCF, USF, Northern Illinois, Toledo, Bowling Green, Ohio, and even North Dakota State is being shown on ESPN more often.

Anyone who thinks that flagships like Colorado will ever be dumped for the CSU's of the world is smoking some hard-core ish.

Actually quo his entire list including schools like NC State, Kentucky, Purdue, Northwestern being about to be replaced by G5 schools is insane...

That is the problem with the P5 and the old ways. The TV metrics don't work with those schools. Since Notre Dame is claiming the Chicago tv market? It hurts Northwestern and Northern Illinois to compete with them. Same with Purdue and Indiana. The value of the schools would be tv metrics and ratings wise which could shift the realignment big time. Why could schools like Iowa State or Washington State get tv money the same amount as Oregon, Oklahoma, Texas, Michigan, ohio State and so forth when the tv ratings for their football sucks big time, and get less airtime on tv. You get Boise State on tv more than Northwestern, Washington State and so forth.

So you're going you are going to kick out AAU Schools like Northwestern, Purdue, Colorado, Vanderbilt for Boise State...LMBO...

(02-21-2016 08:21 PM)Maize Wrote:  

(02-21-2016 07:00 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-21-2016 06:15 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(02-21-2016 02:29 PM)CyclonePower Wrote:  

(02-21-2016 02:12 PM)bluesox Wrote:  I do wonder what's the pac 12 payout if they added OU, OK state, KU and K state? or OU, Ok state, Texas Tech and Houston or OU, Ok state, Texas Tech and give texas a deadline to move. I think the pac 12 could pull off all those moves if they were willing.

I think if the pac was adding schools form the big12 they wouldn't add two teams from the same state if they can try. Like how Iowa State would have a hard time getting into the big ten. Having both Kansas and k state don't add more TV sets.

That is the problem with PAC 12 and Big 12 right now. They do have dead weights for tv viewership. Iowa does not need 2 P5 schools. One of them have to go, and Iowa State could get the axe. Same thing could happen to either Kansas or Kansas State. Oregon State and Washington State could be replaced by BYU and Boise State. Colorado State have the better product than Colorado, and the viewership.

Iowa State, Colorado, Oregon State, Washington State, Kansas, Purdue, Northwestern, Vanderbilt, Kentucky, Miami, NC State, and some others have not been on much for football games on OTA games. A lot of the top G5 schools have like Houston, BYU, Boise State, Memphis, UCF, USF, Northern Illinois, Toledo, Bowling Green, Ohio, and even North Dakota State is being shown on ESPN more often.

Anyone who thinks that flagships like Colorado will ever be dumped for the CSU's of the world is smoking some hard-core ish.

Actually quo his entire list including schools like NC State, Kentucky, Purdue, Northwestern being about to be replaced by G5 schools is insane...

Well yeah, that too.

(02-21-2016 08:31 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(02-21-2016 08:21 PM)Maize Wrote:  

(02-21-2016 07:00 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-21-2016 06:15 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(02-21-2016 02:29 PM)CyclonePower Wrote:  I think if the pac was adding schools form the big12 they wouldn't add two teams from the same state if they can try. Like how Iowa State would have a hard time getting into the big ten. Having both Kansas and k state don't add more TV sets.

That is the problem with PAC 12 and Big 12 right now. They do have dead weights for tv viewership. Iowa does not need 2 P5 schools. One of them have to go, and Iowa State could get the axe. Same thing could happen to either Kansas or Kansas State. Oregon State and Washington State could be replaced by BYU and Boise State. Colorado State have the better product than Colorado, and the viewership.

Iowa State, Colorado, Oregon State, Washington State, Kansas, Purdue, Northwestern, Vanderbilt, Kentucky, Miami, NC State, and some others have not been on much for football games on OTA games. A lot of the top G5 schools have like Houston, BYU, Boise State, Memphis, UCF, USF, Northern Illinois, Toledo, Bowling Green, Ohio, and even North Dakota State is being shown on ESPN more often.

Anyone who thinks that flagships like Colorado will ever be dumped for the CSU's of the world is smoking some hard-core ish.

Actually quo his entire list including schools like NC State, Kentucky, Purdue, Northwestern being about to be replaced by G5 schools is insane...

That is the problem with the P5 and the old ways. The TV metrics don't work with those schools.

Last time i checked, P5 money was doing pretty well. So what 'problem' is there?

We all know that the there are about 15 truly valuable programs. But, they have to play somebody, and they want to play their established conference mates, most of whom do have reasonably strong brand profiles of their own. Oregon State isn't USC, but it isn't Arkansas State either. That is not going to change so that Arkansas Tech can reach their aspirations.

So I'm guessing the difference is mainly the SEC and Big 10 networks that are printing money?

(02-21-2016 06:15 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(02-21-2016 02:29 PM)CyclonePower Wrote:  

(02-21-2016 02:12 PM)bluesox Wrote:  I do wonder what's the pac 12 payout if they added OU, OK state, KU and K state? or OU, Ok state, Texas Tech and Houston or OU, Ok state, Texas Tech and give texas a deadline to move. I think the pac 12 could pull off all those moves if they were willing.

I think if the pac was adding schools form the big12 they wouldn't add two teams from the same state if they can try. Like how Iowa State would have a hard time getting into the big ten. Having both Kansas and k state don't add more TV sets.

That is the problem with PAC 12 and Big 12 right now. They do have dead weights for tv viewership. Iowa does not need 2 P5 schools. One of them have to go, and Iowa State could get the axe. Same thing could happen to either Kansas or Kansas State. Oregon State and Washington State could be replaced by BYU and Boise State. Colorado State have the better product than Colorado, and the viewership.

Iowa State, Colorado, Oregon State, Washington State, Kansas, Purdue, Northwestern, Vanderbilt, Kentucky, Miami, NC State, and some others have not been on much for football games on OTA games. A lot of the top G5 schools have like Houston, BYU, Boise State, Memphis, UCF, USF, Northern Illinois, Toledo, Bowling Green, Ohio, and even North Dakota State is being shown on ESPN more often.

Yeah no. Colorado State over Colorado? hahaha BYU might have the better program but the Pac folks don't want to mingle with the crazy mormons. Also once again thats doubling up in a state that doesn't need doubling up on. Ohio, Bowling Green, NORTH DAKOTA STATE over Miami, Northwestern and NC State? Are you high?

(02-22-2016 09:35 AM)fsquid Wrote:  So I'm guessing the difference is mainly the SEC and Big 10 networks that are printing money?

A big part of it. But the CBS article is pretty sloppy. Many of its numbers don't agree with any other sources, including press releases by the SEC and Big 12. He both overstates and understates the distributions of the two conferences. It would have been simple for him to check, but he puts out numbers that sometimes aren't even logical. He did get 2013-14 mostly right. As for looking at the tax returns, it can be tricky finding the right numbers and understanding them. I've looked at the ACC 990 and its not just sitting in one place easy to find.

What the other sources say:
2011-12 SEC $20.3 million Big 12 $19.0
2012-13 SEC $20.7 million Big 12 $19.8
2013-14 SEC $20.9 million Big 12 $21.2
2014-15 SEC $31.2 million Big 12 $25.2