$$$$ talks and BS walks

Zstatman

Zstatman

Well-Known Member
There was a good article in USA Today earlier this week where Matt Hayes writes another story on the current state of collegiate athletics.

It starts off with Duke having recently signed a contract with Amazon to stream 3 BB games this coming season. What makes it interesting is that the ACC has a contract with ESPN to broadcast BB games and this contract goes against conference media rights rules. But Duke kind of threw this in the face of the ACC, it's a money grab, right? So what does the ACC and ESPN do, they negotiate the rights to some neutral court Duke games and called it a fair trade.

Then the article goes into Ohio St football. This has been talked about here in HN before, but it just won't go away. It asks how long is OSU being to be OK with the B 1G rights sharing agreement currently in place which basically has OSU funding all of the lesser B1G football programs, mentioning schools like Minnesota, Nebraska, Maryland, etc. The article suggest OSU will put up with it until the B1G media rights contract comes up for bid in the 29-30 season.

Finally, it brings up Nebraska. It talks about how last year after James Franklin got fired and Matt Ruhle was seen at his alma mater Penn St and it was rumored he might be in line for the PSU job. Nebraska responds by giving Ruhle more years and more money on his contract. Ruhle's buyout if he gets fired after this coming year is $63M.

To me the article is saying we haven't seen anything yet............
 
Zstatman said:
There was a good article in USA Today earlier this week where Matt Hayes writes another story on the current state of collegiate athletics.

It starts off with Duke having recently signed a contract with Amazon to stream 3 BB games this coming season. What makes it interesting is that the ACC has a contract with ESPN to broadcast BB games and this contract goes against conference media rights rules. But Duke kind of threw this in the face of the ACC, it's a money grab, right? So what does the ACC and ESPN do, they negotiate the rights to some neutral court Duke games and called it a fair trade.

Then the article goes into Ohio St football. This has been talked about here in HN before, but it just won't go away. It asks how long is OSU being to be OK with the B 1G rights sharing agreement currently in place which basically has OSU funding all of the lesser B1G football programs, mentioning schools like Minnesota, Nebraska, Maryland, etc. The article suggest OSU will put up with it until the B1G media rights contract comes up for bid in the 29-30 season.

Finally, it brings up Nebraska. It talks about how last year after James Franklin got fired and Matt Ruhle was seen at his alma mater Penn St and it was rumored he might be in line for the PSU job. Nebraska responds by giving Ruhle more years and more money on his contract. Ruhle's buyout if he gets fired after this coming year is $63M.

To me the article is saying we haven't seen anything yet............
Click to expand...
I could be wrong, but I suspect there is a big difference in the Duke vs. OSU scenarios. The difference is that both are big boys, but one is in a big boy conference. Duke did something mildly selfish, but it could be seen as trying to keep up with the major powers in the other conferences.

OSU is already in one of the two power conferences. Yes, its popularity is subsidizing the Purdues of the world, but its getting as big a piece of the pie as any program out there. They have nearly unlimited resources for football. They have to play someone. They can't just masturbate at the 50 yard line of the Shoe.

Strong conference affiliations, strategic expansion, and collective conference TV negotiations are what have made the SEC and Big 10 the bullies in the schoolyard. I think OSU is bright enough not to try to upset that applecart. If the SEC can keep Texas at heel, I think one of the founding members of the Big10 will be happy being at the top of the biggest heap.
 
Whether it be big corporations or universities with huge athletic budgets, they all have an intense desire to get bigger. Their appetites are insatiable -- always wanting more, more, more.

Ohio St. is not an exception. When negotiations begin on the next BTen media deal, what argument does Purdue have when OSU provides data which shows they bring in X number of viewers and Purdue brings in Y number of viewers. Facts is facts. Conference alliance means literally NOTHING to the Ohio States of the world -- they'd be just as happy to be in an 8-team conference with the top 2 revenue generating university teams from the 4 power conferences if it meant they'd receive more money on an annual basis.

It's all just a business to them. They have a good business now; but if they can make MORE money and create a BETTER business in their eyes, that's exactly what they're going to work toward.
 
In all this mess the middlings of the Big 10 and SEC conference and their fans get lost and disappear into insignificance.
 
If the conference tv contract is only for a team's home games, then what obligation does a team have to play 7 home games in football? Could they just schedule 5 home games and 2 neutral games and sell the TV rights for the 2 neutral games and keep all the money from the 2 neutral games themselves. Do they still get an equal revenue tv share from the conference?
 
Grady said:
Whether it be big corporations or universities with huge athletic budgets, they all have an intense desire to get bigger. Their appetites are insatiable -- always wanting more, more, more.

Ohio St. is not an exception. When negotiations begin on the next BTen media deal, what argument does Purdue have when OSU provides data which shows they bring in X number of viewers and Purdue brings in Y number of viewers. Facts is facts. Conference alliance means literally NOTHING to the Ohio States of the world -- they'd be just as happy to be in an 8-team conference with the top 2 revenue generating university teams from the 4 power conferences if it meant they'd receive more money on an annual basis.

It's all just a business to them. They have a good business now; but if they can make MORE money and create a BETTER business in their eyes, that's exactly what they're going to work toward.
Click to expand...
I get it. I don't disagree with your premise. Humans inherently want more. And maybe there will be some concessions in this regard. But, if I am Purdue my response is this:

We got to the top as a conference. If you want to just keep all of the money and leave scraps for the bottom, you will be winning games 64-12 except for 1-2 games a year where you play your financial equal. Is that compelling? Is that good football? Is that a sustainable product? If we had done that 5 years ago, would Indiana, one of the most compelling stories ever in modern football, have even happened? Probably not. The Big 10 is the best college football product precisely because there is a level of parity and competiveness that brings all eyeballs to the table, not just OSU and Michigan fans.

Need proof? Which product is far and away better: NFL or MLB? Not even close. If you want to be the Dodgers and relegate me to being the Brewers, go ahead. But watch our mutual fan base dwindle, get older, get whiter, and get more regional. Think big and long term and don't fix what aint broken. And F#ck Michigan!
 
I would not care if OSU just left the BT and went somewhere where they think they can get more$$. The conference as a whole could take a hit, then adjust, and be just fine. I will be happy to tell OSU goodbye.
 
Question. Let's say that OSU/Michigan/Georgia etc. lead the revolt to leave the NCAA and form a super league of 24 teams. Its gonna be 8 from the Big 10, 8 from the SEC and 8 from other. This will essentially be a pro league, with no salary cap and just a free for all. The players aren't even students and don't have age or eligibility requirements.

The remaining schools consolidate and continue with a more traditional college football model. Student athletes, NCAA eligibility requirements, and an agreed salary cap across the board and no NIL cheating. Both leagues will be successful, be televised, be profitable, but obviously there is a difference in prestige and money between the two.

Iowa is on the border. It could go with the new super league or stay in the more traditional model. Which would you prefer?
 
HuckFinn said:
I would not care if OSU just left the BT and went somewhere where they think they can get more$$. The conference as a whole could take a hit, then adjust, and be just fine. I will be happy to tell OSU goodbye.
Click to expand...
Agreed. The B1G can just replace them with Notre Dame. Not saying they would come but the timing could be right.
 
haydensly said:
Agreed. The B1G can just replace them with Notre Dame. Not saying they would come but the timing could be right.
Click to expand...
The trouble is that if OSU leaves, its not going to be so they can play no one. And they are not going to the SEC. So, if OSU leaves, half the conference will join them. Notre Dame will assuredly be invited to the party as well. If OSU leaves the Big10/NCAA, it will be part of the most seismic thing that has happened to sports in our lifetime, and that is saying something after what we have seen the last 5 years.
 
Here's an article on the coaches wanting playoff expansion to keep their jobs safe. There are several unnecessary pot shots at Iowa in the article. Beyond that dickish move, I agree with the premise of the article.. 24 teams waters down the playoffs to a lot of non-elite teams. 12 is a good number.

www.usatoday.com

College football coaches hard-launch their soft era, favoring 24-team CFP

An association of college football coaches has called for max participation in the College Football Playoff. Bust out the ribbons!
www.usatoday.com www.usatoday.com
 
NorthKCHawk said:
Here's an article on the coaches wanting playoff expansion to keep their jobs safe. There are several unnecessary pot shots at Iowa in the article. Beyond that dickish move, I agree with the premise of the article.. 24 teams waters down the playoffs to a lot of non-elite teams. 12 is a good number.

www.usatoday.com

College football coaches hard-launch their soft era, favoring 24-team CFP

An association of college football coaches has called for max participation in the College Football Playoff. Bust out the ribbons!
www.usatoday.com www.usatoday.com
Click to expand...
I guess the guy that wrote this article has never watched the NCAA basketball tournament !! Some of the most watched and exciting games are when Cinderella dogs charge forward and ripen at the right moment !! I'm not saying I want 24 teams but watching ELITE teams that get preferential treatment in the polls from week one till the play offs is boring as hell. Notre Dame for example 0-2 after first couple of weeks and still ranked.
 
BuiltLikeWilt said:
I guess the guy that wrote this article has never watched the NCAA basketball tournament !! Some of the most watched and exciting games are when Cinderella dogs charge forward and ripen at the right moment !! I'm not saying I want 24 teams but watching ELITE teams that get preferential treatment in the polls from week one till the play offs is boring as hell. Notre Dame for example 0-2 after first couple of weeks and still ranked.
Click to expand...
And to your point, Iowa took two playoff teams to edge this year, and we absolutely had the national champ on the ropes. So yes, upsets can happen.

And, Iowa was better than its record all year, and that is why the committee kept ranking us and the pollster did not. But, the playoffs should mean something. Iowa had its chances. If we handle our business against ISU and Indiana we would have made the playoffs. Watering it down to let 4 loss teams in doesn't sit well with me.

I like 12, but think that the first two rounds should be on campus and then moved to NFL stadiums for the Final 4. Leave the bowls out of the playoffs. No need.
 
NorthKCHawk said:
I get it. I don't disagree with your premise. Humans inherently want more. And maybe there will be some concessions in this regard. But, if I am Purdue my response is this:

We got to the top as a conference. If you want to just keep all of the money and leave scraps for the bottom, you will be winning games 64-12 except for 1-2 games a year where you play your financial equal. Is that compelling? Is that good football? Is that a sustainable product? If we had done that 5 years ago, would Indiana, one of the most compelling stories ever in modern football, have even happened? Probably not. The Big 10 is the best college football product precisely because there is a level of parity and competiveness that brings all eyeballs to the table, not just OSU and Michigan fans.

Need proof? Which product is far and away better: NFL or MLB? Not even close. If you want to be the Dodgers and relegate me to being the Brewers, go ahead. But watch our mutual fan base dwindle, get older, get whiter, and get more regional. Think big and long term and don't fix what aint broken. And F#ck Michigan!
Click to expand...
Ohio St will no doubt listen politely to Purdue's argument. And then give it zero attention.
They don't care about the 'long game'. They want a larger share of BTen $$, NOW.
The irony is, despite the hyped up 'rivalry' between OSU and Michigan, since they have the most eyeballs it's very likely they'll be on the same page and work together -- behind the scenes, of course -- with the same goal in mind when it comes to revenue sharing.
 
Grady said:
Ohio St will no doubt listen politely to Purdue's argument. And then give it zero attention.
They don't care about the 'long game'. They want a larger share of BTen $$, NOW.
The irony is, despite the hyped up 'rivalry' between OSU and Michigan, since they have the most eyeballs it's very likely they'll be on the same page and work together -- behind the scenes, of course -- with the same goal in mind when it comes to revenue sharing.
Click to expand...
I have not seen any evidence that OSU has made any statements to this effect. All I have seen is internet speculation that they might or could or should. As much shit as we give OSU for being O$U, they are still a founding member of the conference and a serious academic institution. I get money and sports are pretty damn big, but nothing of this sort is going to happen without presidents and boards signing off on it. OSU is not going anywhere without Michigan, and Michigan likes being smart and in a smart kids conference. These are also schools with endowments that start with the letter B. Leaving the conference to join a bunch of slack-jawed yokels from Alabama would be pretty tough to do even if it was for a massive paycheck.

As for staying and demanding a bigger share? Let's see if they have 10 votes.....
 
NorthKCHawk said:
I could be wrong, but I suspect there is a big difference in the Duke vs. OSU scenarios. The difference is that both are big boys, but one is in a big boy conference. Duke did something mildly selfish, but it could be seen as trying to keep up with the major powers in the other conferences.

OSU is already in one of the two power conferences. Yes, its popularity is subsidizing the Purdues of the world, but its getting as big a piece of the pie as any program out there. They have nearly unlimited resources for football. They have to play someone. They can't just masturbate at the 50 yard line of the Shoe.

Strong conference affiliations, strategic expansion, and collective conference TV negotiations are what have made the SEC and Big 10 the bullies in the schoolyard. I think OSU is bright enough not to try to upset that applecart. If the SEC can keep Texas at heel, I think one of the founding members of the Big10 will be happy being at the top of the biggest heap.
Click to expand...
I can actually see OSU fans doing this. They would just call it the big O.
 
NorthKCHawk said:
I have not seen any evidence that OSU has made any statements to this effect. All I have seen is internet speculation that they might or could or should. As much shit as we give OSU for being O$U, they are still a founding member of the conference and a serious academic institution. I get money and sports are pretty damn big, but nothing of this sort is going to happen without presidents and boards signing off on it. OSU is not going anywhere without Michigan, and Michigan likes being smart and in a smart kids conference. These are also schools with endowments that start with the letter B. Leaving the conference to join a bunch of slack-jawed yokels from Alabama would be pretty tough to do even if it was for a massive paycheck.

As for staying and demanding a bigger share? Let's see if they have 10 votes.....
Click to expand...
I kind of thought it seemed a little 'out there' too, but I saw some comments from some Michigan or Ohio St. administrator on some panel or as part of some interview who previewed the case they'll make during the next media deal negotiations. It's a real thing.

I think OSU and Michigan will threaten to leave unless the BTen adjusts their revenue sharing to better reflect each institution's value it brings to the new media deal. It would be pretty easy to structure a 'base' appropriation as a % of the media deal to be spread equally among all BTen institutions, and then add some 'bonus' payments above and beyond depending on eyes -- if I was a betting man, which I am, I think both OSU and Michigan will end up staying in the conference, but their strong bargaining position will force some type of hybrid solution like that, which will allow everyone to save face.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


Latest posts

Share this page



Top