I can't see why a conference would pay its stars top money ? Is that the claim here?
-
You do not need to register if you are not going to pay the yearly fee to post. If you register please click here or log in go to "settings" then "my account" then "User Upgrades" and you can renew.
HuskerMax readers can save 50% on Omaha Steaks .
Eat What You Kill
- Thread starter Hville
- Start date
It’s about the idea that going forward the B1G and SEC are not goi g to be willing to give equal shares to other conferences for CFP money and hunting at even within conferences, generated money from media revenue might not be shared equally. The Rutgers and Illinois’s might not get the same as the higher generating Ohio states and Michigans.
Sombody wants to turn it into players being employees topic.
Oh ok, other conferences
I know the rotating larger one league talks are currently falling on deaf ears. Where there's 60 teams say in the league with 10 more in non permanent depending on the years prior record.
So that also fits with the Big and sec demanding the drivers seat.
Maybe I read it too quickly and missed something, but I'm not sure how paying the top schools more $$ with no controls for parity (such as a salary cap / draft) is going to be sustainable in the long run. Not sure anyone wants to watch two leagues that consist of only 2-3 teams that are actually competitive with the gulf widening each and every year. Its a good economic model for most businesses, but sports leagues need some type of parity forcing function over time.
There may be a private and an overall like it is currently. Shares plus say 1890 for individual teams.
One thing, if it does come down to parity bucks, it becomes more of a coaching league than we've seen before.
That's the model proposed by the teams that don't make the cut now. Not happening.
It may happen, depending on the money.
I prefer the pay to play. Lesser schools play at the big schools and get payed like it is now. One game, no home and home
Yep. They’ve already ruined things, just another in the long line of things, so may as well just win.
I agree, but I also can't see how, e.g., Alabama and Ohio State will continue to share equally with, e.g., Northwestern and Vanderbilt if there's isn't some entity that will force them to.
Rewinding a few decades, the Big 8 and Big 10 operated with very unequal revenue. Sure, they might have shared TV money equally, but that was less then than ticket sales. Nebraska, Oklahoma, Ohio State, and Michigan sold out every game and sold lots of merchandise and that brought them far more revenue than Iowa State and Purdue brought in. That remains the case in terms of stadium revenue, but the TV money is now far more and is shared equally. That has made the Big Two conferences what they are, but now that they face no real competition from other conferences, I expect they will look within and start de-equalizing revenue at some point. Perhaps it won't be too drastic, but it could be a combination of ratings and wins determining your distribution of conference TV money, with some guaranteed base of 80% of the current draw, or maybe reduce the draw for everyone and have a bonus system for CFP and bowl winners.
Yes, sports needs some parity. But a long as you are one of the big dogs who gets to eat, parity doesn't mean much. When Nebraska and Oklahoma dominated the Big 8 in revenue, we weren't complaining. It could be like that again. CFB especially has almost always been dominated by the same 10-15 teams. People like dynasties and domination too. If every season were a roll of the dice, that would be tough to watch too. It's nice to have a cinderella team here and there, but not every season.
Just win, baby.
It is not historical, and kind of amazing and weird actually, that places like Boston College, Vanderbilt, Northwestern, etc. have gotten tens of millions of dollars poured on them in TV revenue that they plainly are not generating. When conferences were competing against one another for TV deals, it made sense to get your whole conference better. Now that the SEC and Big Ten have separated themselves, I am not sure why it would continue that programs get far more money from their conference than they bring in.
It's been clear for a long time that as realignment morphed and accelerated in order to maximize capture of TV revenue above all else that eventually it will also affect revenue sharing within conferences.
Sure glad Nebraska punches above it's weight in fan following. It's critical now to have some 10 win seasons in football to reinvigorate the fan base and refresh the national brand.
It would be great if huskermax was suddenly swamped by the 18 - 34 age demographic. But I'd still yell at them to get off my lawn.
Sure glad Nebraska punches above it's weight in fan following. It's critical now to have some 10 win seasons in football to reinvigorate the fan base and refresh the national brand.
It would be great if huskermax was suddenly swamped by the 18 - 34 age demographic. But I'd still yell at them to get off my lawn.
Last edited:
It would be great if huskermax was suddenly swamped by the 18 - 34 age demographic. But I'd still yell at them to get off my lawn.
That would be an interesting combination to witness.
We do have a few younger posters on the board, a couple I know personally, who have pretty good takes on things. I'd say 'beyond their years' kind of takes. I suspect the bulk in that age range would not look at things the same way the bulk of us do or at minimum not be focused on the same things.
Like I said. It would be interesting for sure.
Demographics are a huge challenge for Nebraska, the state and the university, going forward. It is the smallest school in the conference besides Northwestern. So it also has the smallest alumni base. The alumni that have experienced any serious football success are now in their 40s at the youngest. So it is really important to get to playing at a high level soon and for an extended period to generate alumni that care enough to donate in the future and to watch/stream games, etc. And if it can be kept up, it would help get more out of state kids attending, which would benefit the university financially. Alabama used to have maybe 20% out of state students. Now it is over 50%. That is a huge influx of tuition dollars and butts-in-seats (in class and at the stadium) that helps the university and the athletics programs massively.It's been clear for a long time that as realignment morphed and accelerated in order to maximize capture of TV revenue above all else that eventually it will also affect revenue sharing within conferences.
Sure glad Nebraska punches above it's weight in fan following. It's critical now to have some 10 win seasons in football to reinvigorate the fan base and refresh the national brand.
It would be great if huskermax was suddenly swamped by the 18 - 34 age demographic. But I'd still yell at them to get off my lawn.
Its in their own self interest. And beyond that, the vandys wont be standing still either as the disparity grows, even they will become more worthy of an opponent.
I believe you just described in a nutshell what Dannen is referring too. Those who produce more will start demanding more. His CFP example where the B!G and SEC teams will make 21 million a piece and the ACC Big 12 will get 13 a piece per team demonstrates that. I believe that he is trying to say that even within conferences, the time will come where the revenue sharing will be higher for the top teams as you mentioned.
Last edited:
