Wizenheimer wrote:PDXKnight wrote:Wizenheimer wrote:I can't see either the Big-10 or SEC kicking teams out of the conference. That would be a real difficult task politically and may not survive legal challenges...and there would be legal challenges
however, I could certainly see a situation where the blue bloods...Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, USC, maybe Oregon, maybe Mich State push really really hard for a bigger share of revenue over Rutgers, Purdue, Northwestern, Maryland, etc. The blue bloods are the ones getting the big ratings which in turn drives media contracts.
Same thing in the SEC....Georgia and Alabama should be getting a bigger share than Vanderbilt
yeah i’ve often wondered this same issue myself, there is an obvious discrepancy between media market value of ohio state and northwestern and a split pie isn’t fair. Eventually the big schools who carry the television weight will inevitably demand it be a more fair system that recognizes the value that big names bring to a conference and those conferences will need to account for that in a quick way or suffer a death similar to the pac even if it meant the better brands build their own super conference free from the dead weights. Ultimately i think this scenario will be avoided as the blue bloods will get paid, and maybe once that money issue becomes more apparent schools like rutgers realizing the money won’t be there for them like it was and the losing hasn’t gotten any funner… will voluntarily go to another conference. But bare minimum no doubt they won’t get equal revenue at least if the Big 10 or SEC don’t have a death wish
I would think an uneven share distribution would still leave the 'tier 2' schools in a much better situation than being in any other conference
for instance, the BIG will be getting a new media deal in 2030. For the sake of argument, assume a static number of teams (I think there will be further expansion, but it's math I don't want to perform right now)
say that the first year base share for 18 teams is 75M/school. I can see a situation where the BIG says, according to the media partner (for example), there are 10 tier-2 teams an 8 tier-1 teams (being an Oregon fan of course I assume Oregon is tier 1)
so the BIG does a 'merit' split of payout where all 10 tier-2 teams get 10M less dropping them to 65M base 1st year. And the 8 tier-1 teams split the 100M taken from tier-2, 12.5M per school. Meaning tier-2 schools get a 65M payout which is just about guaranteed to be 25-30M more than they could get anywhere else. Meanwhile, the tier-1 schools will start with a 1st year base of 87-88M
it likely wouldn't be that wide of a gap, at least not 1st year; and the formula will likely be a lot more complicated. There might even be relegation where there was a process a tier-2 school could move up, and a tier 1 school could drop
I'd imagine oregon is tier one as well due to ratings. I think this system makes some sense but then there's outliers like ohio state Michigan and usc (ND?) who generate so much damn money they could almost be a tier 1A and then there's a tier 1 and 2 after that. Those potential top 4 could be easily worth double the rest on average (hypothetically, something like 1/2 more than tier 1 and could be quadruple tier 2 value).
Something like this for 2030 (in no particular order besides tiers)
Tier 1A: 120 million
Ohio state
Michigan
Usc
ND?
Tier 1:
Michigan state
Oregon
Washington
Wisconsin
Iowa
Nebraska
Penn state
Tier 2:
Ucla
Minnesota
Illinois
Indiana
Purdue
Northwestern
Rutgers
Maryland
Minnesota
I do agree things could be subject to change over time and perhaps the B1G views ucla Maryland Nebraska etc differently but I'd imagine 2030 will be something close to this with tiers as those top 4 independently could probably generate 90-120 million annually fairly handily