B1G revenue Shares increased

[derleider]

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.

Obviously the 35.5 is very conservative - considering that full members are already up to $32 million before the new deal gets made. $45 million is the realistic number. And that of course doesnt include increases in revenue for RU from non-conference sources.

This will give us a HUGE edge over ACC teams and make teams like Temple and UConn gnats on our windshield (right now they are still within in sptting distance of us in revenue).

Of course the real problem is that everyone gets that bump. Whi;le the relative increase is much higher for RU than the other 13 teams, its still going to be a long slog to get from a bad AAC level athletics department to a good Big Ten one.

 

[LevaosLectures]

Yeah fellow Rutgers fans should really refrain from ragging on any other B1G program. Purdue has been to a rose bowl which us a damn site more than we have ever done.

 

[derleider]

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.

This is the dumbest thing Ive ever heard. Seriously. Because Rutgers in the Big 12 is worth almost nothing to the Big 12. Remember - the Big 12 did expand. They invited WVU not us. NYC with its low level of Rutgers interest just isnt that valuable unless you can monetize it.

On top of that, even if we could successfully sell ourselves to the Big 12, the Big Ten knows we arent stupid.

What you are basically saying is that Rutgers leverage was that we would trade more money in years 1-7 for much more money in years 8-infinity plus a much more stable conference situation, and one in which we had local rivals. And thats assuming the Big 12 would take us at full payout right off the bat - but they probably wouldnt - WVU and TCU arent getting a full payout.

I mean Im sure the ACC would have taken us if the Big Ten didnt want us, and that would have been a much more plausible threat - we replace MD and they might have even given us a full payout. But again - we are talking $5 million extra for the next 7 years vs $25 million extra or more after that (and a conference we know isnt going to fall apart).

You are worse than RutgersAl.

 

[Knight_Light]

Obviously the 35.5 is very conservative - considering that full members are already up to $32 million before the new deal gets made. $45 million is the realistic number. And that of course doesnt include increases in revenue for RU from non-conference sources.

This will give us a HUGE edge over ACC teams ............

ACC Commish got drilled in his press conf as to why after 4 years of "trying/development", the ACC TV Network doesn't even exist on paper, let alone have TV partners involved.

FSU is starting to freak out that there may never ever be an ACC TV Network (which was one of the promises ACC made to FSU and Clemson as to why they didn't bolt to the Big 12), and while ACC's TV take goes up about $1.5 Million per year (this year approx $22 Million), Big Ten and SEC Teams will soon be in the $40 Million plus range and maybe in 4-5 years, SEC and Big Ten teams will be earning DOUBLE the annual Conf $$ vs what FSU will be making.


Still no timetable for an ACC Network
http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/07/20/still-no-timetable-for-an-acc-network/

Column: Swofford dances around TV deal, finances
https://floridastate.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1784662

 

[derleider]

ACC Commish got drilled in his press conf as to why after 4 years of "trying/development", the ACC TV Network doesn't even exist on paper, let alone have TV partners involved.

FSU is starting to freak out that there may never ever be an ACC TV Network (which was one of the promises ACC made to FSU and Clemson as to why they didn't bolt to the Big 12), and while ACC's TV take goes up about $1.5 Million per year (this year approx $22 Million), Big Ten and SEC Teams will soon be in the $40 Million plus range and maybe in 4-5 years, SEC and Big Ten teams will be earning DOUBLE the annual Conf $$ vs what FSU will be making.


Still no timetable for an ACC Network
http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/07/20/still-no-timetable-for-an-acc-network/

Column: Swofford dances around TV deal, finances
https://floridastate.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1784662

They are probably going to be too late. I think by the time their GOR ends or is close enough to ending that it would be worthwhile to try to get out of it, the era of the conference network will be over and we will be on to the HBO model of charging many fewer people lots more money. So they cant leave and join the Big 12, which, with Texas and Florida would have alot of households, and by the time they can, their might not be a big advantage to doing so. It surprised me that they didnt leave for the Big 12 after A&M left.

 

[Upstream]

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.

According to the Warchant article that KnightLight linked, FSU earned just over $22 MM from the ACC this year. So that's still a $10 MM gap vs the $32 that Purdue (and other B10 teams) made. And it is not like that gap is predicted to get smaller in the future.

 

[Scarlet_Scourge]

ACC payouts went up 4 million. however, the SEC went up a heck of a lot more and so did the Big Ten. Once the SEC network is fully paid for, they should get paid a few more millions a year and the Big Ten is about to go up an extra 10 to 20 million a year with the new TV contract.

The ACC and Big 12 and even the PAC 12 will be left in the dust money wise.

 

[pawildcat]

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.

WVU makes little sense in the Big 12 (their nearest home game is 600-some miles away), but didn't have the academic chops to be considered for the B1G. You guys would make even less sense in the Big 12.

 

[topdecktiger]

According to the Warchant article that KnightLight linked, FSU earned just over $22 MM from the ACC this year. So that's still a $10 MM gap vs the $32 that Purdue (and other B10 teams) made. And it is not like that gap is predicted to get smaller in the future.

The payout for the ACC was $25 million dollars this year. The article you references was a statement by the Florida St AD, in which he said Florida St would receive "over $22 million." He didn't name the actual figure. Clemson just released its financial figures today, and they got $25 million from the ACC. If Clemson is getting $25 million, then Florida St is getting at least that.

Actually, the ACC does get more money. If ESPN decided no to start an ACC network, then the ACC gets an increase in its payout. It's part of the contract.

 

[Cruising Route 66]

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. Not true. Both the ESPN and BTN contracts were renegotiated when RU and MD came on board. For example, the BTN contract was adjusted upward and paid out $13.4M more in rights fees in 2014 than what was originally contracted. The ESPN contract was similarly adjusted. 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.

Money is fungible and all the TV rights money goes into the big pot. The conference takes around a 4% cut and the remainder is split equally amongst the schools except for RU, MD and NU.

 

[krup]

Do you have something citing this ESPN contract increase you mentioned? I have not seen it anywhere and ESPN had only adjusted other contracts like the ACC in return for an alteration in the contract's length, which didn't happen here.

 

[Scarlet_Scourge]

WVU makes little sense in the Big 12 (their nearest home game is 600-some miles away), but didn't have the academic chops to be considered for the B1G. You guys would make even less sense in the Big 12.

The Big 12 was throwing out a lot of names. Each AD of each school had a list. From what I understand the OU AD had Rutgers on his list. I have no idea how much support there was besides Oklahoma. There some in the ACC that wanted Rutgers but a few power brokers did not like FSU who felt we wasn't a big enough name in football, they were already annoyed at the Pitt and Cuse additions which they felt were basketball choices.

As far as how the heck WVU got invited. From what I remember, WVU was sending out feeders to every single conference on Earth. The ACC and SEC told them no. I have no idea if they contacted the Big Ten and Pac-12 but it wouldn't shock me. The Big 12 wanted to bring in WVU and Pitt together but when Pitt got the invite to go with Cuse to the ACC, they jumped right on it. Both wanted the Big Ten instead but were rejected. WVU was willing to go to the Big 12 solo without any travel partner. They have been complaining about not having a travel partner ever since. I guess they held out hope that the Pitt part would be replaced by another nearby school but it wasn't, instead the other Big12 schools really wanted another Texas based school to joined and TEXAS finally caved in and TCU was invited.

All of the above was based from interviews and quotes from articles that were published during that time on ESPN and many other legitimate websites. No internet rumors and no insider info there.

my opinion:

IMHO, Rutgers is a perfect fit for the Big Ten, for Rutgers, clearly a chance to FINALLY be in a conference with our academic peers and play against schools that people in NJ actually heard of instead of the custerfuk that was the Big East and AAC. Also, of course money... lots and lots of money. The only draw back is that half of the schools are really far away, but adding Maryland and creating East and West divisions fixed that problem. For the Big Ten, they were the ONLY conference that could actually capitalized on adding the biggest TV market in the United States and give the power brokers in the Big Ten easy access to NJ players. Rutgers was no powerhouse but rather the ultimate sleeping giant. The Big Ten can now use their strong brand to help Rutgers become a legit national power. The Big East and the AAC were preventing this from ever happening but the sky is the limit now that we are in the Big Ten. It won't happen over night but now it has a very real legit chance of happening now.

 

[Upstream]

The payout for the ACC was $25 million dollars this year. The article you references was a statement by the Florida St AD, in which he said Florida St would receive "over $22 million." He didn't name the actual figure. Clemson just released its financial figures today, and they got $25 million from the ACC. If Clemson is getting $25 million, then Florida St is getting at least that.

Actually, the ACC does get more money. If ESPN decided no to start an ACC network, then the ACC gets an increase in its payout. It's part of the contract.

OK. So Purdue made 28% more than FSU, not 45% more. It's still a big gap. And as Rutgers fans (and fans of other BE schools) know all too well, it is hard to keep up when you are in a conference that has payouts that are 30% or so lower than the other major conferences.

Regarding your comment about ESPN paying the ACC more if ESPN doesn't start an ACC network: Is there a timeframe in which this network needs to be started for the ACC to get the extra money, because I don't see an ACC network today.

 

[Scarlet16E]

Let's face it. What happened was a "perfect storm" of sorts in our favor.
No conference had the means to monetize Rutgers' primary advantages (location in the NYC DMA) except for the B1G. And no other school could deliver that TV market's housholds for the BTN to the extent that Rutgers could.
However, based on our overall athletic success, I'm sure there was more than one B1G president who had to swallow hard as they cast their vote to invite us.
We should be eternally grateful to those that sold the deal to the B1G presidents. Jim Delany foremost.
Suggesting that we could have made a better deal, or that we had other realistic options is pure fantasy.

We need only look to Uconn to see where we would be if RU had made this deal difficult for the B1G presidents.

 

[Knight_Light]

According to the Warchant article that KnightLight linked, FSU earned just over $22 MM from the ACC this year. So that's still a $10 MM gap vs the $32 MM that Purdue (and other B10 teams) made. And it is not like that gap is predicted to get smaller in the future.

That's why some in the ACC are starting to freak out...as the Big Ten and SEC teams will soon be over the $40 Million annual mark...while ACC teams will be barely half that.

With nothing to show for their ACC TV Network after 4 years....and nothing on the horizon over the next 1-2 years....ACC may never get their tv network...while will keep the ACC teams practically "light years" away from their SEC and Big Ten counterparts.

 

[krup]

OK. So Purdue made 28% more than FSU, not 45% more. It's still a big gap. And as Rutgers fans (and fans of other BE schools) know all too well, it is hard to keep up when you are in a conference that has payouts that are 30% or so lower than the other major conferences.

Regarding your comment about ESPN paying the ACC more if ESPN doesn't start an ACC network: Is there a timeframe in which this network needs to be started for the ACC to get the extra money, because I don't see an ACC network today.

I had always seen that ESPN had until 2016 to decide on whether to start an ACC network. That makes sense to me, considering by then they will know how many B1G games they will have going forward.

I have seen both $2 million and $3 million annually as the figure ESPN would pay ACC schools if they choose not to proceed with an ACC network, which is more income for them but shouldn't be satisfying for the FSU and Clemsons of the world considering schools like Vandy and Northwestern will make significantly more than that from being in a conference that has a network.

 

[StyleKnight]

There has been no greater success than the SEC network. I thought the B1G would be able to create a gap when our new deal is up but the SEC network will keep them about even with B1G. The network will eventually turn the SEC into the top earning conference without doubt.

 

[StyleKnight]

I had always seen that ESPN had until 2016 to decide on whether to start an ACC network. That makes sense to me, considering by then they will know how many B1G games they will have going forward.

I have seen both $2 million and $3 million annually as the figure ESPN would pay ACC schools if they choose not to proceed with an ACC network, which is more income for them but shouldn't be satisfying for the FSU and Clemsons of the world considering schools like Vandy and Northwestern will make significantly more than that from being in a conference that has a network.

Interesting. I think ESPN is gunshy after the longhorn network failure. The ACC just does not have enough quality content.

 

[Jomamma69]

AAC vs. Big Ten vs. SEC...who cares? If only we put this much thought and effort into actually winning some games.

 

[topdecktiger]

Do you have something citing this ESPN contract increase you mentioned? I have not seen it anywhere and ESPN had only adjusted other contracts like the ACC in return for an alteration in the contract's length, which didn't happen here.

Yes. This is one link I found:

The league’s current media rights contract is valued at $260 million a year through 2027, or about $18 million per school on an average annual basis across 14 schools. Notre Dame’s cut is much smaller because the Irish have their own football deal with NBC.

ESPN, if it says no to a channel, would increase its compensation to the ACC, pushing the per-school average to close to $20 million.
http://m.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2013/05/20/Media/ACC-net.aspx?

 

[topdecktiger]

OK. So Purdue made 28% more than FSU, not 45% more. It's still a big gap. And as Rutgers fans (and fans of other BE schools) know all too well, it is hard to keep up when you are in a conference that has payouts that are 30% or so lower than the other major conferences.

Regarding your comment about ESPN paying the ACC more if ESPN doesn't start an ACC network: Is there a timeframe in which this network needs to be started for the ACC to get the extra money, because I don't see an ACC network today.

Well, see, that's the thing. It's only the SEC and Big Ten that are making that much money. The ACC is making about the same as the Pac 12 and Big 12. The Big 12 paid out $27 million this year, vs. $25 million for the ACC. With the $2 million on the table, then they are pretty much even. The ACC actually made slightly more than the Pac 12 last year, which is getting hurt because its network isn't earning enough money. Point being, all the other major conferences are not making a lot more money than the ACC. The ACC schools aren't in any worse position than the Pac 12 or Big 12 schools. If you are going to say ACC schools are in trouble, then you have to say the Big 12 and Pac 12 schools are also in trouble.

 

[derleider]

Interesting. I think ESPN is gunshy after the longhorn network failure. The ACC just does not have enough quality content.

I suspect that its more about it just not working financially versus just keeping the ACC product on ESPNs family. The ACC has as many people as the SEC and Big Ten nominally, but the fan base in alot of that territory is alot weaker. So its not the LHN problem of basically not having anything anyone wants to watch anywhere, whereas the ACCN would have stuff some people would want to watch, but not enough people to offset the fact that these things costs money, not just to produce, but also in lost product that ESPN could be showing on its own networks.

 

[StyleKnight]

I suspect that its more about it just not working financially versus just keeping the ACC product on ESPNs family. The ACC has as many people as the SEC and Big Ten nominally, but the fan base in alot of that territory is alot weaker. So its not the LHN problem of basically not having anything anyone wants to watch anywhere, whereas the ACCN would have stuff some people would want to watch, but not enough people to offset the fact that these things costs money, not just to produce, but also in lost product that ESPN could be showing on its own networks.

Yes there isn't strong enough demand to force the cable companies to provide it on basic cable. Fans in SEC country demand the SEC network, it's not the same with the ACC fanbase.

 

[krup]

Yes. This is one link I found:

Sorry, I wasn't questioning you. The poster Cruising Route 66 replied to one of my comments with the statement that the B1G contract with ESPN was adjusted after RU and MD were added. I have never seen that anywhere and he has not responded with any backup.

We have seen a lot in the media about how the ACC contract was adjusted upward (and the years were adjusted) with each addition so I don't believe that happened with the B1G.

 

[knightfan7]

AAC vs. Big Ten vs. SEC...who cares? If only we put this much thought and effort into actually winning some games.

Yeah, we can't hope to have a winning team when we fans spend so much time on other topics.

Come on guys. It's July. Camp starts in two weeks......FOCUS! The only discussion here should be how we fans are going to pull out that big win at PSU.

 

[topdecktiger]

Sorry, I wasn't questioning you. The poster Cruising Route 66 replied to one of my comments with the statement that the B1G contract with ESPN was adjusted after RU and MD were added. I have never seen that anywhere and he has not responded with any backup.

We have seen a lot in the media about how the ACC contract was adjusted upward (and the years were adjusted) with each addition so I don't believe that happened with the B1G.

It didn't. It was actually smart by the Big Ten. The ESPN contract was almost up, which means the payout had escalated to its highest point. Since there were only a couple of years left on the deal, it made sense to just let it run out, since it was at max level.

 

[Scarlet Shack]

Derleider

See the numbers posted with the big ten and sec and the fall off for the big12, pac12 and ACC

Only one of those three can come close to catch up to the big 10 and sec by swallowing part of the other two

Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma state and Kansas to the pac12. Sooner or later

 

[derleider]

Derleider

See the numbers posted with the big ten and sec and the fall off for the big12, pac12 and ACC

Only one of those three can come close to catch up to the big 10 and sec by swallowing part of the other two

Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma state and Kansas to the pac12. Sooner or later

Not sure why you specified me here. I agree with your comment.

 

[Cruising Route 66]

It didn't. It was actually smart by the Big Ten. The ESPN contract was almost up, which means the payout had escalated to its highest point. Since there were only a couple of years left on the deal, it made sense to just let it run out, since it was at max level.

Nope

 

[krup]

Nope

So, are we are supposed to just rely on your whopping 12 post history for credibility, or are you going to post something that shows the ESPN/B1G contract was redone when MD and RU were added?

 

[Upstream]

So, are we are supposed to just rely on your whopping 12 post history for credibility, or are you going to post something that shows the ESPN/B1G contract was redone when MD and RU were added?

I believe that Cruising is a Penn State fan and related to George Zoffinger (maybe his son). I also think he has some strong ties to those in the know regarding finances at Penn St. Aside from generally being a pompous a-hole, he often has reliable information. I certainly wouldn't take his post as gospel, but I would assume his information is more reliable than TopDeckTiger.

 

[topdecktiger]

I believe that Cruising is a Penn State fan and related to George Zoffinger (maybe his son). I also think he has some strong ties to those in the know regarding finances at Penn St. Aside from generally being a pompous a-hole, he often has reliable information. I certainly wouldn't take his post as gospel, but I would assume his information is more reliable than TopDeckTiger.

The only reason I respond to this is because it's funny how some of you act with this stuff.

I was actually agreeing with you and most of the other posters. The other poster I responded to was mentioning that the Big Ten's deal with ESPN was not renegotiated when Rutgers and Maryland joined. Are you saying that's incorrect? You are saying that the Big Ten is NOT about to renegotiate a new TV deal with ESPN in 2016? Wow, that's news to me. I could have sworn that almost every Rutgers fan posting here on this board has said the Big Ten is about to sign a new TV deal with ESPN next year, and how much money it's going to make. I'm pretty sure I've read that.

So because you were wearing your "mine's bigger than yours" conference glasses, let met explain what I actually said in the previous post. I was giving Delany a compliment. Instead of immediately renegotiating the ESPN deal when Rutgers and Maryland joined, Delany chose to delay renegotiation and let the current contract run to completion (in 2016), and then sign a new deal.

That was a really smart move, because since the current deal is almost done, it's paying max level now. (All the TV contracts increase over time, and as they mature, the payouts are larger.) So what Delany did was let this contract run for the final two years, so the Big Ten could get that max payout. That's several million dollars extra the schools get to pocket by deferring negotiations until 2016. It was a smart move. I'm not sure why you and the other poster are arguing with that. You think it was a dumb move???

 

[krup]

I believe that Cruising is a Penn State fan and related to George Zoffinger (maybe his son). I also think he has some strong ties to those in the know regarding finances at Penn St. Aside from generally being a pompous a-hole, he often has reliable information. I certainly wouldn't take his post as gospel, but I would assume his information is more reliable than TopDeckTiger.

I'm not sure how you gleaned that much of his background from the 10 posts he had before this thread but, if you are correct, being the progeny of a guy who proclaimed the genius of the Xanadu idea certainly doesn't add to his credibility.

I can produce at least 50 links to articles talking about how ESPN renegotiated the ACC contract each time the ACC added teams, and I have never seen one saying the same thing happened when the B1G added RU and MD. In contrast, I can produce ton of links from the same writers that the ESPN and B1G deal WASN'T redone.

If Cruising wants to link to some evidence backing his assertion, I will read it and then judge whether I stand corrected. Until then, his short, contrary posts are just those of a troll.

 

[Upstream]

I'm not sure how you gleaned that much of his background from the 10 posts he had before this thread but, if you are correct, being the progeny of a guy who proclaimed the genius of the Xanadu idea certainly doesn't add to his credibility.

I can produce at least 50 links to articles talking about how ESPN renegotiated the ACC contract each time the ACC added teams, and I have never seen one saying the same thing happened when the B1G added RU and MD. In contrast, I can produce ton of links from the same writers that the ESPN and B1G deal WASN'T redone.

If Cruising wants to link to some evidence backing his assertion, I will read it and then judge whether I stand corrected. Until then, his short, contrary posts are just those of a troll.

Cruising has way more than 10 posts. Notice that his join date is from 2001. His post count on the Rutgers board reset to zero with the change over to the new message board format. (I posted a few weeks ago on the Seton Hall board, and my post count there had reset to zero, and my avatar did not exist.)

As I said, I wouldn't take his posts as gospel. He is a pompous a-hole (like his father, if in fact he is Zoff's son), and he often twists information to fit his agenda. But he does seem to have access to real inside information that is not publicly available. So even though wouldn't automatically believe what he posts, I wouldn't automatically dismiss it either.

Also, I don't think he meant that the B10 negotiated a new contract with ESPN when Rutgers and Maryland were added (the same way that the ACC actually rewrote its contract with ESPN upon expansion, ending up with a new expiration date). I think he meant that ESPN's payout to the B10 was adjusted under the existing agreement because the addition of new schools meant additional programming inventory for ESPN.

 

[krup]

Cruising has way more than 10 posts. Notice that his join date is from 2001. His post count on the Rutgers board reset to zero with the change over to the new message board format. (I posted a few weeks ago on the Seton Hall board, and my post count there had reset to zero, and my avatar did not exist.)

As I said, I wouldn't take his posts as gospel. He is a pompous a-hole (like his father, if in fact he is Zoff's son), and he often twists information to fit his agenda. But he does seem to have access to real inside information that is not publicly available. So even though wouldn't automatically believe what he posts, I wouldn't automatically dismiss it either.

Also, I don't think he meant that the B10 negotiated a new contract with ESPN when Rutgers and Maryland were added (the same way that the ACC actually rewrote its contract with ESPN upon expansion, ending up with a new expiration date). I think he meant that ESPN's payout to the B10 was adjusted under the existing agreement because the addition of new schools meant additional programming inventory for ESPN.

Please excuse me for not accepting at face value the unsubstantiated assertions of someone even his defenders admit "often twists information to fit his agenda", when they conflict with the information given by every media member willing to go on record.

 

[Upstream]

Please excuse me for not accepting at face value the unsubstantiated assertions of someone even his defenders admit "often twists information to fit his agenda", when they conflict with the information given by every media member willing to go on record.

I'm certainly not suggesting that you should believe Cruising at face value (in fact, I think I was fairly obvious in suggesting that you shouldn't). My point is that you should not dismiss him just because he has 12 posts listed under his name.

Now as far as whether ESPN increased its payout to the B10 upon the entrance of Rutgers and UMD, there are other ways you can figure out if it is likely.

For example, from the information in this thread, we know that Purdue (and presumably the remaining 10 fully-vested members of the B10) saw an increase in conference payout of about $5MM. We also know that Maryland and Rutgers received something (versus zero from the B10 last year).

Assuming that the Football bowl payouts were distributed to just the 11 fully-vested members and none to Rutgers or UMD, that represents approximately $2.6MM of the $5MM increase those schools saw. That includes the money received for OSU. (Although Playoff payouts are more than BCS payouts, the B10 did not play in the Rose Bowl this year, and therefore did not receive Rose Bowl money.) The NCAA basketball tournament yielded about another $100K increase to each school.

So the two major non-TV revenue sources represented approximately $2.7 MM of the $5 MM increase. So you still have $2.3 MM x 11 schools = $25 Million, plus the money distributed to Rutgers and Maryland (at least $10 MM each) and whatever increase Nebraska saw. There needs to be some revenue source that increased by about $50 MM to account for all that extra cash that was distributed. Unless you think that the price of Big Ten Tournament tickets increases by $1000 per seat, television seems to be the logical place that saw a B10 revenue increase.