Sure. But in this case, this is all bout the shared revenue from post season championships and how to distribute that money amongst the participants. The only difference between football and basketball is that the NCAA controls basketball and not football. So they keep a majority of the basketball revenue, where the revenue from the CFP is mostly distributed. Which is why it seems like a much bigger deal. But if the 3 major basketball conferences wanted to demand a majority of the revenue similar to what the SEC and Big10 are doing for football, they certainly could.
Playoff Setup
- Thread starter Aclone
- Start date
Sure. But in this case, this is all bout the shared revenue from post season championships and how to distribute that money amongst the participants. The only difference between football and basketball is that the NCAA controls basketball and not football. So they keep a majority of the basketball revenue, where the revenue from the CFP is mostly distributed. Which is why it seems like a much bigger deal. But if the 3 major basketball conferences wanted to demand a majority of the revenue similar to what the SEC and Big10 are doing for football, they certainly could.
Creating a basketball tournament separate from the NCAA just like football did. Without the top three conferences, the current tournament dies.
Same thing if you cut out the big10 and sec, viewership craters. It’s why there won’t be a super league in football. There just isn’t the leverage in basketball
How did you come up with $6M? I came up with Big10/SEC making $9.176M more than Big12/ACC. What I didn't account for were: Notre Dame, SMU, Oregon State & Washington State. Are they getting a cut of the $130M other?
Total Payout - $1.3M
Big 10/SEC - $754M divided by 34 schools = $22.176M per school
Big12/ACC - $416M divided by 32 schools = $13.000M per school
Other Schools - $130M
I would use the reverse argument if I were the Big12 & ACC schools. Is blowing up the current model worth it for $9M a year, when your (Big10/SEC) schools are already making $30M+ more a year from Conference TV deals?
Money isn't everything, but the Big10/SEC power move reeks of elitism by the Big10/SEC schools. What the tweet saying a 58%/32% split didn't mention is that based on 100% of the $1.3M or is that split one split of the $1.3M and there is another split for the 12/14 playoff teams.
I feel if the Big10/SEC want to make this a power play, then college football fans in Big12/ACC/G5 need to vote with their eyes and let ESPN/FOX know they won't be watching Big10/SEC games. I doubt it benefits FOX, ESPN, NBC and CBS to alienate a portion of the college football viewing audience.
I just did big 10 vs Big12 so 18 schools vs 16. I’m going off the tweet but I’m assuming the SEC/BIG are splitting the 58% and vice versa for the ACC/Big12. Comes out to 20mil for big ten and 13 for Big12. I was just doing rough math in my head so it’s a little closer to 7mil but that’s how I did it.
Btw the whole don’t watch thing just doesn’t work. Ratings were up last year and expected to continue to be up this year. The idea that people aren’t watching over money just isn’t happening. The vast majority of viewers are not aware or care about the money
Can't use past viewership trends to justify. MLB found out what a strike that wiped out their playoffs did to long-term TV viewership. It's not smart to alienate even 10% of a fan base.
I can only speak for myself (a person who watches at least 3 CFB games each weekend), I will boycott Big10 & SEC games. Maybe they (TV folks/Big10/SEC) don't care because they figure there aren't enough people like me. But based on the huge TV rights fees that ESPN, FOX, CBS and NBC are on the hook for the next 6-8 years, is it worth the gamble?
This is all about the Big10/SEC making sure the future recruiting playing field isn't level. Whether it's money available for NIL funds or being able to play higher salaries/benefits when student-athletes become employees.
It’s like when people claim they are tuning out due to NIL, anthem kneeling, or any other BS. The fact is that people just don’t in any significant numbers stop watching.
Also the playing field has never once been level, I don’t know why people seem to think that football was this once utopia of parity. None of this changes a single thing for ISU football except gives a significantly larger chance to make a playoff.
Last edited:
The playing field has never been level, but it has only heavily favored maybe a dozen blue bloods. And schools that made under the table payments!!
If money wasn't going to be critical go forward, why are the Big 10 & SEC trying to monopolize a bigger share of new revenue streams? Because they know that they can monopolize talent if they are paying significantly more than Big12 and ACC. Not only HS talent, but guys on campus.
An incremental $10M might not seem like much to you, but Big10/SEC schools already make $30M more on their conference TV deal. That $40M is nothing to UM or OSU, but it's a gold find for Iowa, Minn, Mizz, IL, Ark, etc. And in 6 years, the Big10 & SEC will just want a bigger cut.
Viewing habits can change. If ISU becomes the Kansas City Royals and EVERY Big10/SEC team are the Yankees/Dodgers, why would CFB have much interest to me? Sure once a decade ISU might have a storybook season. But our best players will be gone the next season because Indiana will have a stack of cash to flash.
Hers the problem though, in your scenario the only way that extra money becomes an issue is if schools can directly pay players. If that happens college sports are over. Doesn’t matter what conference you are in.
Btw the blue bloods that were heavily favored before are still going to be heavily favored. Which lower tier big ten or SEC team do you see suddenly rising up just because of extra money?
I don’t believe he means rising up to the likes of Georgia or Ohio State. I think he means the Indiana’s, Miss St, Minnesota’s, ect of the world separating themselves from Iowa State, Kansas St., Texas Tech, ect.
You have mention the bolded multiple times today. Do mean just Olympic sports? Because football will always exist (in some shape or form).
If that happened a good number of schools with football programs would shut down as well. Between title nine, employee status, and a bunch of other issues related to schools directly playing it would have severe effects that would shutter a lot of programs. Not blue bloods and maybe not any in the P4 at first but it would get rough.
But yeah Olympic sports would be the first casualties across the board.
I don't think it's my scenario. Recent court rulings point heavily toward players becoming employees. They will collectively bargain work rules.
So yes, the existing Olympic Sport development model will cease. Olympic Sports will need to fund their sport independently based on donors and ticket sales. If a school can not fund a sport at the ultra-competitive level, then those sports might exist like Club Sports do on campuses today. Wrestling might be a good example where an Iowa, Nebraska, Iowa State, Oklahoma State, etc. can support at the highest levels. But other schools like an Illinois, Rutgers, North Carolina, etc. might choose to compete at a club level or drop.
I have said this multiple times in prior posts. This money grab by the Big10/SEC isn't meant to benefit the blue bloods like Ohio State, Michigan, Texas, Alabama, Penn State, etc. They already make between $175M-$250M in revenue annually. Their greed is to keep up with each other and make sure they have the nicest toys (aka pay coaches most, best facilities, etc.)
It's the 2nd tier of Big10/SEC schools that fall in the $140M-$175M revenue range today that will suddenly have $40-$50M more to fund player compensation than their Big12/ACC peers. Specifically, schools at the lower end of this 2nd tier like: Arkansas ($152M), Iowa, Nebraska, Illinois, Wisconsin and Missouri ($141M). Plus bottom tier Big10 schools like Purdue ($115M), Rutgers, Mississippi State, Maryland ($107M) that will suddenly have $40M-$50M more of new INCREMENTAL money than Big12/ACC schools to pay players through NIL or salary to come to their universities.
If your a 3 star HS football player and while on their campus recruiting visits has:
- A Big 10 coach from Iowa, Purdue, Illinois, etc. offering the kid $300k annually plus a full ride scholarship plus NIL opportunities. The $300k is paid to All Big10 football players from a $25M compensation fund that each Big10 University had set aside from their $90M Big10 TV deal (includes CFP $)
- A Big12 coach from Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State or Oklahoma State offers the same kid $175k annually plus a full ride scholarship plus NIL opportunities. The $175k is paid to EACH Big12 football player from a $15M compensation fund that each Big12 University had set aside from their $45M Big12 TV deal (includes CFP $).
And BTW- since the Big12 & ACC schools are ony getting maybe $5-$10M annually of incremental TV money from the new CFP, they had to cut the majority of their Olympic Sports to fund the $15M player compensation pool. The Big10/SEC schools were able to fund entirely from only part of their new TV money and most Big10 schools did not have to make severe cuts to Olympic Sports.
Again the moment schools can pay players directly it’s over. Anytime your agreement starts with that it doesn’t matter how much money is involved. Paying players directly between employee status, and title nine will simply cause most schools to drop the majority of sports. Once that ripple effect is in motion anything can happen.
Also to your recruiting point, that is already happening now so there isn’t much difference. ISU’s 2024football class doesn’t have a single big ten or sec offer for the top three highest recruits. So yeah your gonna get the same guys you have always gotten and turn them into NFL studs because CMC is a great coach.
Well hang on tight, because players are going to get compensated. How it looks who knows, but the pro sports leagues models are probably a good place to start because that's what the Football Player Unions will be familiar with.
You keep citing the highlighted above stat, isolating 3 recruits out of 20+ kids in the 2024 class. How about looking at the 3 kids in ISU's 2025 Class?
2025 Class Commitments (Offers by Conference)
- Alex Manske: ISU +4 Big10 +1 Big12 +1 SEC +1 ACC
- Will Thompkins: ISU +7 Big10 +2 Big12 +2 SEC+1 ACC
- Trey Verdon (Legacy): ISU + 2 ACC
I didn’t look at 2025 because those players haven’t signed yet but your point is valid.
I’m kind of surprised this section on Clemson filing lawsuits of their own didn’t get more attention. I guess everyone expected it to happen eventually but this is the first I’ve seen that definitive action could be happening sooner rather than later.
Attorneys for Clemson have spent the last several months gearing up for legal action of their own, sources with knowledge of the discussions tell Yahoo Sports.
While ESPN’s contract with the ACC extends through 2036, the network has the option to opt out of the final nine years starting in 2027, a way that ESPN itself could possibly reopen the grant-of-rights, or at the very least, restructure the deal.
Could a restructured deal with uneven distribution prevent more departures? Would an ESPN opt-out swing open the door for more schools to exit?
The network must exercise the option by February 2025.
Attorneys for Clemson have spent the last several months gearing up for legal action of their own, sources with knowledge of the discussions tell Yahoo Sports.
While ESPN’s contract with the ACC extends through 2036, the network has the option to opt out of the final nine years starting in 2027, a way that ESPN itself could possibly reopen the grant-of-rights, or at the very least, restructure the deal.
Could a restructured deal with uneven distribution prevent more departures? Would an ESPN opt-out swing open the door for more schools to exit?
The network must exercise the option by February 2025.
It doesn’t get attention for the same reason no one took FSU seriously. They can complain all they want but they are stuck. ESPN isn’t backing out just to pay FSU and Clemson more money while losing inventory. Also Clemson is another down year or two away from being back where they were before dabo, an afterthought
Seems like just yesterday when West Virginia put up 49 pts in the 1st half against Clemson in the Orange Bowl Dabo's 1st year.
