B1G revenue Shares increased
- Thread starter RU205
- Start date
This is a good trend, but we aren't fully vested for a few years yet. When we are, hopefully the jump will be pleasantly absurd.
The linked article states:
"An estimated $1 million of the revenue shares comes from profits made through the Big Ten Network. The Big Ten Network has been generating a profit for a few years now, but some of that money was being used to help Maryland and Rutgers make the transition into the Big Ten. Maryland and Rutgers (and Nebraska) are not eligible for full shares of the Big Ten revenue pie."
We've known that UMd was getting help but how is RU getting it? Or is this just something in print reflecting a lack of detailed investigation?
One thing that has never been clarified here, to my knowledge, is whether RU is receiving a fixed $ amount or a fixed % of a full share. If the latter, then RU would be benefiting from this increased payout received by the conference schools. 50% of $32 million is better than 50% of $28 million or whatever the projected amount had been.
"An estimated $1 million of the revenue shares comes from profits made through the Big Ten Network. The Big Ten Network has been generating a profit for a few years now, but some of that money was being used to help Maryland and Rutgers make the transition into the Big Ten. Maryland and Rutgers (and Nebraska) are not eligible for full shares of the Big Ten revenue pie."
We've known that UMd was getting help but how is RU getting it? Or is this just something in print reflecting a lack of detailed investigation?
One thing that has never been clarified here, to my knowledge, is whether RU is receiving a fixed $ amount or a fixed % of a full share. If the latter, then RU would be benefiting from this increased payout received by the conference schools. 50% of $32 million is better than 50% of $28 million or whatever the projected amount had been.
Someone.. I think a PSU poster broke down the revenue pretty detailed on here and it appeared to be the most accurate.
Did Missouri and Texas A&M get full shares when they joined the SEC?
Also, surprised to hear that the Fox Entertainment Group subsidiary of 21st Century Fox owns 51% (controlling interest) and the Big Ten Conference owns 49% of the Big Ten Network.
FEG is Bill O'Reilly's employer, right?
Also, surprised to hear that the Fox Entertainment Group subsidiary of 21st Century Fox owns 51% (controlling interest) and the Big Ten Conference owns 49% of the Big Ten Network.
FEG is Bill O'Reilly's employer, right?
What I find pleasantly absurd is that our official 2021 projection for our Big 10 share is only 25 million. Yes, the athletic department is projecting only 25 million in our first "full" year in the big 10. That is an absurd understatement...but at the same time it makes me giddy with joy. Thank you football God.
EDIT...so I'm off here. Our first full year in the conference is actually Fiscal 2022 which ends June on 2022. Our official projection is 35.5 for fiscal 2022. The 25 million projection is for fiscal 2021. The 2022 number stills looks conservative but it's a bit more realistic. Thank you football God.
EDIT...so I'm off here. Our first full year in the conference is actually Fiscal 2022 which ends June on 2022. Our official projection is 35.5 for fiscal 2022. The 25 million projection is for fiscal 2021. The 2022 number stills looks conservative but it's a bit more realistic. Thank you football God.
Last edited:
I know it's been said before but you absolutely cannot compare the deals that Maryland, Mizzou, TAMU, or even Colorado and Nebraska got when they switched conferences to what RU received. RU had like ZERO leverage. Everyone knew the B1G could offer us negative revenue for 20 years (pay to play) and we would still probably take the deal because our alternative was to lose P5 status. Maryland had a perfectly viable option of staying in their ancestral home, the ACC, which, while it may not have the prestige of the Big Ten, is still a strong and viable power 5 conference (for now anyway). The same for TAMU and and Mizzou who needed a deal that made sense to leave the Big 12. Rutgers had no such leverage and if we got a worse deal that those others, that's why.
I think our leverage is understated on here. It was known for a long time that we were one of the B1G's primary targets. Th conference knew how much revenue our cable boxes would generate and I'm sure they weren't the only conference. Don't forget our name was mentioned in BigX11 discussions and it was rumored the ACC knew we weren't interested.
My guess is the help is in the form of consultations with B1G officials and stuff like the B1G roadshow. I remember a time when they visited fairly often.
I look at it this way.. right now MD is helping the B1G fielding some good teams.. but hurts because they cost other members money. RU hasn't been successful on the field, for the most part,but doesn't cost much and generates some NYC market eyeballs.. helping revenue a bit more than MD perhaps. And in a few years we will be full members and that will be that. No more need for hand-wringing.
no. No change will be made. The deal was to get full payments in 2020 and not before.
I don't know if the increase per year in a set amount or a % of the conference money payment. If it is a perfect it will go up some but if it is set it will stay as is.
What I find impressive is that the 32M is basically on par with the SEC's 31M but the B10 hasn't renegotiated their contracts yet. I thought it might fall 1-2M short of the most recent SEC distribution. The only thing is the SEC eventually will probably get a little boost as well when all the start up costs of the SEC network are recouped.
Although I'd say this, I think the SEC is distributing a full share to all its 14 members while the B10 has 3 members being brought in on their revenue share. However you cut it though, it's still darn good and these 2 will always be out in front of the pack.
As to the RU revenue share schedule, I've posted this many times before from a report I saw over a year ago. Assuming nothing has changed we're only gonna get in the vicinity of 10-11.5M for the first few years, then a jump to 15M, 19M, 25M and finally 35M for a full share ( a number likely to be higher as 35M seems low now given all the revenue projections out there).
Although I'd say this, I think the SEC is distributing a full share to all its 14 members while the B10 has 3 members being brought in on their revenue share. However you cut it though, it's still darn good and these 2 will always be out in front of the pack.
As to the RU revenue share schedule, I've posted this many times before from a report I saw over a year ago. Assuming nothing has changed we're only gonna get in the vicinity of 10-11.5M for the first few years, then a jump to 15M, 19M, 25M and finally 35M for a full share ( a number likely to be higher as 35M seems low now given all the revenue projections out there).
Where do you think that extra $70 million came from this year to distribute to the other schools? It's not like they found a big pile of money in Indiana & decided to share it.
Thanks guy. Any chance you have a link to the report you saw or remember where it was because I remember seeing 25 million as our official projection for our first full big 10 year. Thanks in advance. RUthinking.
EDIT...I found figures that show our first full year in the big 10 is actually the 2022 fiscal year (fiscal year ends June 2022). The figure projected as Rutgersguy says is 35.5 million up from 25 million for fiscal 2021.
Last edited:
Teams that make little attempt to put a decent team on the field should be sent to 1AA until they shape up - like European soccer. It is obivous Purdue is just collecting checks.
I tried to find the link again awhile back but no luck. It was some faculty report I think and those numbers were projections, so projections could always change. I couldn't tell you if those were fixed numbers or related to percentages of revenues.
I'm guessing some time in the coming months we'll find out what our first year figures were when RU has to disclose its revenue figures and some reporter requests them.
If this is the way Rutgers handled the entire situation, we have weak leadership running the entire school and athletic program. We are sitting in the most densely populate area in the country with very smart young people (future college students) and the NYC media on the east coast.
Even though us fans were worried sick, our leadership should have had cooler heads and knew the B12 and B1G wanted and needed to expand. Plus West Virginia was crying since day one they needed an east coast partner.
A strong leader would have pitted the B12 against the B1G and we should have gotten paid from day one. Nope. We pulled a Rutgers.
One article I see shows that Bowl revenue went up 31 million for the conference. (78.6 in fiscal 2015 vs. 47.6 in 2014). Another article says bowl distributions doubled in 2015. So that's the lion share of it. I'll post links when I can...work is getting in the way of this...
Yup, it's gonna get real interesting when we get the full share.
BUT, until then, we got games to play. The situation reminds me of my buddy that shows up a bar/pool hall and, with a simple ole house cue, whips the guys that bring their fancy expensive home sticks. The wins will be that much sweeter.
Yea that's the lion's share of all these conference jumps to record numbers, not just the B10. I mentioned this awhile back when the B10's revenue figures were being projected for Maryland in an SI article and some couldn't understand the jumps. The playoff money and new "BCS" bowl contracts were the cause of the jumps in revenue for all the conferences. This was the first year for those monies to start coming in. I wouldn't expect as big a jump in the coming years outside the usual escalators in these tv contracts. Only the B10 will probably will likely receive a bigger than "normal" jump because of their renegotiation.
I know we've been the worst team in the conference the last two years but I hardly think that qualifies your statement. Purdue is trying to field a good football team. They've just made some really bad decisions on that front since Joe Tiller left. Anyway, we made bowl games in 2011 and 2012 and fired that coach because he wasn't winning enough. Bad decision? Probably considering how bad the two years under the new coach have been but it certainly isn't an indicator of a program that is satisfied to be collecting a paycheck.
Rutgers got exactly the same deal as Nebraska. Maryland's deal was structured differently, but represents the same revenue over the buy-in period.
The difference between teams joining the B10, and teams joining other conferences, is that the B10 already had an established television network at the time Nebraska, Rutgers, and Maryland joined. The buy-in period is the period in which the new schools buy into the equity that the network represented. The other conferences did not have an established network, so in those conferences the existing and new schools all started with zero equity positions.
Yesss, this means we should be having the press conference for our new hockey program and arena by Thursday !!!
From all the articles it seems to boil down to each of the three new members, MD, NEB, ans RU each had to pay 50 million as a buy-in to the B1G Network. For RU and NEB it was equal payments spread out over 6 years and for MD because they were financially worse off than us it was a front-loaded deal where they received a bigger share of the revenue in the earlier years and less in later years until their 50 million share got paid off. I would guess that part of the 32 million Purdue got was from Buy-in money contributed by the new schools.
That's actually incorrect. Florida St. figure is from last year, not this year. The ACC's payout for this year hasn't come out yet.
Ah, yes - the Adamany Gambit. The School bluffs from a position of weakness with a conference. That worked out well for Temple in 2001
You may wish to reconsider your slander of Purdue, and inform yourself before spouting off about something about which you are ignorant.
First, a huge financial investment was made in the hoops program and the hoops facilities, and there is going to be a reward this year for Purdue.
Second, rightly or wrongly, a huge investment has been made in non-football facilities at Purdue.
Third, rightly or wrongly, until this coming year, Purdue athletics has been writing a $5 million check to the academic side.
Fourth, Purdue athletics gets zero dollars from the school.
Fifth, Purdue athletics is one of the few schools in the country whose athletics department is in the black.
Sixth, with all of the above having been accomplished, Purdue is starting to focus on football.
It can be argued that football should have been taken care of first, but Purdue has not just been collecting checks.
I think the simple way to look at it is that RU is getting none of the ESPN contract money, because that contract was not renegotiated when the new members joined. Then, remember that the last year before RU/MD joined, it was released that each B1G school made about $7.6 million for the BTN.
So, the "help" RU is getting is that they are probably getting more than a full share of the BTN money to allow them to make the north of $10 million amount they are getting annually during their transition to a full share.
