Right now, many top schools have been happy with the money coming in from TV. They have been making far more money than they were before. But, the question becomes, how long are they willing to share equally? Will Texas, Ohio State, or Alabama decide that since they are bringing more money into the conference, they should receive more of the money?

It may not be something that appears on the surface. It may just start out as extra travel money for conference championship games and bowl games that just happens to be multi-millions. It may be "TV appearance compensation" money that just happens to go to the biggest and most popular programs. It may be money given to the big teams as an incentive to extend grants of rights.

The conferences report average distribution amounts, and total distribution amounts. They don't always report per-team amounts and seem to want to give the impression of equality. Is is really equal sharing? If it is, how long do schools like USC stand it before insisting they get paid the same as other big schools, as the Pac 12 network hasn't delivered the goods.

I think the pendulum has swung in the direction of equal sharing, and may well swing back into the direction of paying more for big teams as they are bringing more money in. I can't see such schools acting against their financial interests forever, and I wonder how much unequal sharing is currently happening.

Go Cougs!!!!!!!

The Big Ten and Big XII have been unequal in recent years due to giving partial shares to new members.

The equal share model has worked wonderfully for US pro leagues.

But as delivery methods change and it becomes even easier to see the disparity in value, it isn't unreasonable to think a major player in a conference will eventually broach the issue.

Unequal or Equal revenue sharing is used as a bargaining chip.

The AAC used equal revenue sharing as a way to attract schools like Tulsa and Tulane to join who were concerned about the payout. Now with both schools on board they are moving to an unequal distribution of basketball money to entice UConn into staying part of the basketball conference.

In the MWC a revenue guarantee was used to entice Boise State back but now the presidents are pushing an equal sharing model again.

The MAC has unequal basketball revenue sharing from basketball units which benefit Akron, Ohio and Buffalo who have earned all the units if I am correct over the rolling 6 year period. The idea here was to incentive the other MAC schools into investing more into their basketball programs and they generally have.

Northwestern was a founding member of the B1G in 1896. You think after 120yrs of not pulling their weight the other schools are suddenly going to start punishing NW financially? no way.

(08-06-2016 08:13 PM)HawkeyeCoug Wrote:  Right now, many top schools have been happy with the money coming in from TV. They have been making far more money than they were before. But, the question becomes, how long are they willing to share equally? Will Texas, Ohio State, or Alabama decide that since they are bringing more money into the conference, they should receive more of the money?

It may not be something that appears on the surface. It may just start out as extra travel money for conference championship games and bowl games that just happens to be multi-millions. It may be "TV appearance compensation" money that just happens to go to the biggest and most popular programs. It may be money given to the big teams as an incentive to extend grants of rights.

The conferences report average distribution amounts, and total distribution amounts. They don't always report per-team amounts and seem to want to give the impression of equality. Is is really equal sharing? If it is, how long do schools like USC stand it before insisting they get paid the same as other big schools, as the Pac 12 network hasn't delivered the goods.

I think the pendulum has swung in the direction of equal sharing, and may well swing back into the direction of paying more for big teams as they are bringing more money in. I can't see such schools acting against their financial interests forever, and I wonder how much unequal sharing is currently happening.

Go Cougs!!!!!!!

This sounds eerily similar to the way the Big 12 is run. It seems to be working out great for them.

The SEC already provides additional travel money for the post season and does not share bowl game money equally. I can't speak for the ACC, B1G or PAC but I would suspect they do something close to the same.

The A10 has unequal sharing of NCAA credits for many decades. It's more complicated than this, but if you earn a NCAA credit and the conference is activity still receiving it (5 years) you're in the 75% pool.

The "pendulum" will only "swing" if college sports revenues start a big, long-lasting decline. And even then it's iffy. The SEC and Big 10 have a good thing going. I can't see Florida or Ohio State messing with a good thing.

Without conference bottom feeders in certain sports, top schools would not be able to pad their records. 10-2 looks a lot better than 8-4. That's what the football programs at Vandy, WF, Indiana, Kansas, etc., are for - to provide some entertainment while losing and to finance the other sports. There is no expectation from the fans that such schools will prevail more than once a generation. Ohio State, Alabama, etc., rarely face more than 3 games a year from schools that have equal or near equal talent. 8 wins are baked in and there are 3-4 real contests.

When everyone finishes 5-7 to 8-4 you end up with no conference villains or underdogs, and no interest. The ACC did this for about 5 years in the 2000's and it hurt the conferences reputation. While that works in the playoff system of the NFL, it doesn't work for college unless your schools are FCS.

Imagine the following super conference:

Northwest:

Virginia Tech
Penn State
Ohio State
Michigan
Michigan State
Nebraska
Oklahoma
Texas
TAMU
LSU

Southeast:

Notre Dame
UNC
Tennessee
Clemson
Georgia
Alabama
Auburn
Florida
Florida State
Miami

How many losing seasons can any of these fan bases tolerate? How many 7-8 wins seasons are tolerable? Even the Harlem Globetrotters need the Washington Generals.

I don't think it would apply to TV/Media packages but I could see a scenario where schools that make post-season events get to keep a larger share of that payout. Say a school goes to a bowl game that pays $5 million. With equal revenue sharing, each school in a 10-team league would get $500k. With unequal sharing, one school would get $2 million(40%), the other 9 schools would get $333k. It's not a huge cut for the other schools but a big reward for the school that made the bowl.

(08-07-2016 09:44 AM)Wolfman Wrote:  I don't think it would apply to TV/Media packages but I could see a scenario where schools that make post-season events get to keep a larger share of that payout. Say a school goes to a bowl game that pays $5 million. With equal revenue sharing, each school in a 10-team league would get $500k. With unequal sharing, one school would get $2 million(40%), the other 9 schools would get $333k. It's not a huge cut for the other schools but a big reward for the school that made the bowl.

This illustrates why this is unlikely to occur in the Big Ten ... the fact is that a one-off net $1.5m increase in the Big Ten distribution in a given year is not a big deal for a Big Ten athletic department.

(08-06-2016 08:21 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  The Big Ten and Big XII have been unequal in recent years due to giving partial shares to new members.

With four out of five P5 conferences having conference networks, this kind of "unequal revenue sharing", where new members buy into the existing conference equity with smaller share for a period of time, after which they get the same share as incumbents ... that is here to stay.

The OP would appear to rather be about arrangements like unequal sharing of NCAA units and unequal sharing of media revenues based on appearances on national TV, which seems to be more common at the G5 level and below.

(08-06-2016 08:13 PM)HawkeyeCoug Wrote:  Right now, many top schools have been happy with the money coming in from TV. They have been making far more money than they were before. But, the question becomes, how long are they willing to share equally? Will Texas, Ohio State, or Alabama decide that since they are bringing more money into the conference, they should receive more of the money?

It may not be something that appears on the surface. It may just start out as extra travel money for conference championship games and bowl games that just happens to be multi-millions. It may be "TV appearance compensation" money that just happens to go to the biggest and most popular programs. It may be money given to the big teams as an incentive to extend grants of rights.

The conferences report average distribution amounts, and total distribution amounts. They don't always report per-team amounts and seem to want to give the impression of equality. Is is really equal sharing? If it is, how long do schools like USC stand it before insisting they get paid the same as other big schools, as the Pac 12 network hasn't delivered the goods.

I think the pendulum has swung in the direction of equal sharing, and may well swing back into the direction of paying more for big teams as they are bringing more money in. I can't see such schools acting against their financial interests forever, and I wonder how much unequal sharing is currently happening.

Go Cougs!!!!!!!

Coming soon to a neighborhood in your area.

(08-07-2016 12:28 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  Unequal or Equal revenue sharing is used as a bargaining chip.

The AAC used equal revenue sharing as a way to attract schools like Tulsa and Tulane to join who were concerned about the payout. Now with both schools on board they are moving to an unequal distribution of basketball money to entice UConn into staying part of the basketball conference.

In the MWC a revenue guarantee was used to entice Boise State back but now the presidents are pushing an equal sharing model again.

The MAC has unequal basketball revenue sharing from basketball units which benefit Akron, Ohio and Buffalo who have earned all the units if I am correct over the rolling 6 year period. The idea here was to incentive the other MAC schools into investing more into their basketball programs and they generally have.

Boise State is the only team that was bringing any money into that conference because of their access to the Fiesta Bowl and all that.

(08-07-2016 02:56 AM)perimeterpost Wrote:  Northwestern was a founding member of the B1G in 1896. You think after 120yrs of not pulling their weight the other schools are suddenly going to start punishing NW financially? no way.

This. The Big Ten isn't suddenly changing their revenue distribution model, the schools that have been there since the early days (or the beginning) are very happy with things.

The only permanent exception to equal distribution of revenue is men's hockey media revenue. Only the 6 schools who sponsor men's hockey receive payouts of media revenue earned by men's hockey. However, they each receive the same amount of money. I would assume Notre Dame will receive the same amount as well once they start Big Ten play in 2017-2018.

There's the obvious temporary (6-year phase-in) reduced payouts for Nebraska, Maryland and Rutgers, but these are entrance fees and mostly about buying in for their equity stakes in the BTN.

(08-10-2016 02:38 PM)brista21 Wrote:  This. The Big Ten isn't suddenly changing their revenue distribution model, the schools that have been there since the early days (or the beginning) are very happy with things.

The only permanent exception to equal distribution of revenue is men's hockey media revenue. Only the 6 schools who sponsor men's hockey receive payouts of media revenue earned by men's hockey. However, they each receive the same amount of money. I would assume Notre Dame will receive the same amount as well once they start Big Ten play in 2017-2018.

There's the obvious temporary (6-year phase-in) reduced payouts for Nebraska, Maryland and Rutgers, but these are entrance fees and mostly about buying in for their equity stakes in the BTN.

Ignoring buy-in fees and differences in hockey, I think the Big 10 may actually be implementing unequal sharing in subtle ways. For example, how much do teams that make the title game get? Will that money increase over the next few years? I would argue that the teams playing in it should get the lions share of the fees generated by it. Should the revenue generated by the championship game be shared evenly? Should "travel costs" be $500K per team in the title game, or are they getting $5M per team?

It may not start out as an obvious "Ohio State and Michigan get twice what everyone else get." It may be extra travel costs for title games, bowl games, or basketball tourney games. I'm not sure what these stealth "uneven sharing" arrangements are, but I would guess that the Buckeyes missed some money by missing the playoffs and conference title game.

(08-10-2016 02:38 PM)brista21 Wrote:  I would assume Notre Dame will receive the same amount as well once they start Big Ten play in 2017-2018.

I don't think so ... I think that at least initially, they are like Johns Hopkins in Lacrosse, keeping their TV contract and home games, and it's only ND away games in conference.

(08-06-2016 08:21 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  The Big Ten and Big XII have been unequal in recent years due to giving partial shares to new members.

Thats not entirely true. With the B1G the new schools are basically buying their way in. They will all eventually be making the same money as everyone else.

(08-06-2016 08:13 PM)HawkeyeCoug Wrote:  Right now, many top schools have been happy with the money coming in from TV. They have been making far more money than they were before. But, the question becomes, how long are they willing to share equally? Will Texas, Ohio State, or Alabama decide that since they are bringing more money into the conference, they should receive more of the money?

It may not be something that appears on the surface. It may just start out as extra travel money for conference championship games and bowl games that just happens to be multi-millions. It may be "TV appearance compensation" money that just happens to go to the biggest and most popular programs. It may be money given to the big teams as an incentive to extend grants of rights.

The conferences report average distribution amounts, and total distribution amounts. They don't always report per-team amounts and seem to want to give the impression of equality. Is is really equal sharing? If it is, how long do schools like USC stand it before insisting they get paid the same as other big schools, as the Pac 12 network hasn't delivered the goods.

I think the pendulum has swung in the direction of equal sharing, and may well swing back into the direction of paying more for big teams as they are bringing more money in. I can't see such schools acting against their financial interests forever, and I wonder how much unequal sharing is currently happening.

Go Cougs!!!!!!!

Won't matter for you guys as BYU will never be in a conference again.
Cheers!

The money will become an issue if/when the courts decide that players are allowed to be payed without restriction. The schools truly driving the revenue will want and need more of it to bid on athletes. In this scenario Texas, FSU, USC, OSU will no longer tolerate the Wake Forest, BCs, Oregon Sts, etc riding their coattails and siphoning their revenues. The top three dozen schools or so would decide if a pro model is where they wish to compete and they'll create their own semi-pro national league.

(08-11-2016 08:24 AM)FrancisDrake Wrote:  The money will become an issue if/when the courts decide that players are allowed to be payed without restriction. The schools truly driving the revenue will want and need more of it to bid on athletes. In this scenario Texas, FSU, USC, OSU will no longer tolerate the Wake Forest, BCs, Oregon Sts, etc riding their coattails and siphoning their revenues. The top three dozen schools or so would decide if a pro model is where they wish to compete and they'll create their own semi-pro national league.

Good. They will then pay federal and state income taxes just like all of the other professional teams do. Let's see how this goes over with these programs when a huge chunk of their revenues will go to pay the tax man.

Going to a "pro model" for the very top schools would be a disaster, IMO. One of the strong points of CFB is the diversity of schools, the "David vs. Goliath" match ups, etc. Boston College has played and beaten Texas, FSU, and USC. That's what makes CFB great. Why on earth would the average FB fan watch a "pro league" when they can easily watch professionals of much higher calibre - you know, the NFL?

Oh, and don't kid yourself. One objective in establishing the current revenue system - especially in a conference network model - comes from having some member schools in large wealthy markets. FB is one thing, but ask an advertiser whether they would prefer to have their products advertised in a market like Boston (where BC gets very respectable ratings in the 8th largest and one of the wealthiest markets in the country) or, say, Tallahassee.