Football BIG TEN CONFERENCE ANNOUNCES GROUNDBREAKING MEDIA RIGHTS AGREEMENTS
- Thread starter ChrisNalwasky
- Start date
No.. you are claiming something is proactive because it has not been done before. Go read your first response to me. I am countering your argument by stating it has been done before in one way or another. I literally gave Nebraska/PSU as something proactive... then you state that as a counter-argument? I called it proactive because I don't think it was spurred by other adds but was its own idea.
And if something has been done before HOW could it possibly be NEW? You should have left out that OR clause.
Last edited:
In the words of @MadRU :
When does it end for these guys?
"Know my worth?"
Did he miss the part where Kevin Warren said it is expensive for the individual universities to run athletics departments?
Some of these football players are getting a little too greedy and forgetting that football is also supporting non-revenue sports, and Title IX requires several non-revenue sports. Do they not care about the non-revenue sports and athletes?
It's always this with some of these guys:
Since ND wants to beat up on the minor league teams in the ACC, give me Cal/Stanford/Oregon/Washington to make the B1G become the B2G with 20 teams. Go back to ESPN and maybe Amazon for the B1G After Dark late night timeslot to make it worthwhile financially.
“This game is amazing, especially the college atmosphere, because it does have amateurism to it,” Stroud said. “That’s definitely a plus. But at the same time, I’m not 100% sure what our tuition is, but I’m sure it’s not the worth of what we’re actually worth."In the words of @MadRU :
When does it end for these guys?
"Know my worth?"
Did he miss the part where Kevin Warren said it is expensive for the individual universities to run athletics departments?
Some of these football players are getting a little too greedy and forgetting that football is also supporting non-revenue sports, and Title IX requires several non-revenue sports. Do they not care about the non-revenue sports and athletes?
It's always this with some of these guys:
Tuition, room, board, free meals, free travel to games and hotels. Tutors that other students do not have access to. Special spaces for athletes to study that other students do not have access to. Weight rooms that other students do not have access to. Add it all up, and just guessing they are getting something close to $50,000/year. For 85 scholarship players or 100 players total, that is $5 million per year sunk costs just for football. The non-revenue sports have costs too, and those players are not getting a dime of additional compensation.
Colorado instead of Stanford. Academics-wise Stanford is the one.. but market value.. Colorado. And assume, over time, a Big Ten Cal will be better than Stanford.
jersey parents say it’s a good school becusse it justifies them sending their kids to a “cool” out of state school.
Let's put the farce about the value to the players of a free education aside and understand that P5 football has become a semi-professional minor leagues for the NFL. The players at these football factories have no real interest in pursuing a degree, they are there to impress the scouts and make their money at the next level. Thanks to media rights everyone connected to college football is making millions, now billions of $s, the players have a right to share in that revenue stream, and inevitably they will, whether it is next year, five years, or 10 years from now. At some point in the near future they will also unionize. For those interested in watching true student athletes play football I suggest they invest in season tickets to Princeton or Monmouth games.
You said tv deals have been done before what does it matter if it's one entity or separate nothing special about that it's not new or proactive. It is new/proactive/different whatever the heck term you want to use because moving away from the behemoth and megaphone in sports, ESPN, has potential issues. Some B10 admin and sports admin in general mention risks and worries with regards to that. You're not letting ESPN dictate to you and being proactive about it in finding another satisfactory or better but untested avenue ("new"). I think those issues are minimized because of the clout of the B10 but nonetheless it has issues but the networks are a very good alternative. The SEC has gone in the exact opposite direction, so did the ACC. If it wasn't hard or so easy why didn't anyone else do it? No other conference decided to abandon ESPN completely. You write it off as no big deal but it is a big deal to leave behind a player like that. (Mind you they could back in the fray if the B10 expands more).
As to Nebraska/PSU there's nothing new about that teams have been added before so what's special about it by your guidelines of it's been done before. These moves are done if there's a benefit to the conference simple, what makes one proactive and the other reactive? Just because one happened in front of the other? Was the SEC proactive getting Texas/OU just because it happened first? I'd say no. Texas/OU basically fell into their lap because the networks didn't want to negotiate with the B12 early. I don't consider just standing there and some school coming up to you and say "take me" being proactive. Same for Nebraska, the B12 was unstable at the time so Nebraska came to the B10, is that proactive? As to PSU maybe the ACC goes after them the way did FSU if the B10 doesn't. Possible competition spurs them. That was even mentioned by B10 insiders for RU/Maryland with regards to having geographic partners for PSU and the ACC courting them being an issue if PSU didn't have more geographic partners. Is the RU/Maryland add reactive or proactive then? These moves were spurred on by something, not necessarily other moves but spurred by threats or collapses etc.and sometimes it just falls in your lap. You can whittle down just about anything to some core/base and say it's old hat or reactive or whatever term you want to use.
It's almost like innovation vs invention debate you could have about some things. If you want to dig down so many levels, you won't find many things that are really new or proactive or whatever term.
$5 million per year is certainly not sunk costs if it brings in tens of millions. It's a bargain "payroll" for the programs.
YouTube TV is what works for me, because I am allowed to share the service with four family members as long as we are all logged into the home area once every three months. So it is my way of paying for my mom’s cable tv bill (although she still has to pay even more for her internet connection - thanks Optimum!)
Yes.. I said this using "proactive"...
But then you provided examples of what you think of as "proactive". They are not. One is REACTIVE to the SEC's move and the next is just refinement. That, in a nutshell, is my whole argument. If you disagree with that then I do not know what to say.
What would have been PROACTIVE? Being the first conference to say we are playing the 2020 season without fans in attendence. Going through with the 2020 Big Ten Tourney without fans in attendence. Trying to add Texas before the SEC did and then moving onto USC/UCLA before the SEC made its move.
Another real life example.. BTN.
I suppose being the first major conference to say we are NOT playing the 2020 season was PROACTIVE.. but not a good decision.. clearly. Because he FOLLOWED others later. Then again, he was still learning his position. He is better now and will be going forward.. we can all hope.
Being poactive for the sake of looking like you are proactive is probably worse than being reactive all the time and making good decisions because of it. Don't be the first-mover.. but WIN. If you can WIN as the first-mover.. all the better.
related note.. I cannot believe you do not understand proactive and reactive as shown in your latest post mentioning Penn State/ Nebraska. I literally called them proactive despite other conferences doing it before... yet you continue to insist that I am saying they are NOT proactive moves because other conferences had expanded before.
do you understand what I just typed?
Last edited:
From what's out there it does seem like revenue sharing is coming on some level. It can't exactly comparable to what you see in pro leagues because of the reason you state. ADs are funding a dozen or more loss making operations and those aren't going away so what form this all takes who knows.In the words of @MadRU :
When does it end for these guys?
"Know my worth?"
Did he miss the part where Kevin Warren said it is expensive for the individual universities to run athletics departments?
Some of these football players are getting a little too greedy and forgetting that football is also supporting non-revenue sports, and Title IX requires several non-revenue sports. Do they not care about the non-revenue sports and athletes?
It's always this with some of these guys:
For between 6 and 7 million, you can pay every kid on the roster 50k. The superstars get NIL deals as a sweetener. It seems fair to me.
Seems fair to you but maybe not to the actual players. They look at the word billions and they think, with justification, why am I not getting more of that? After 4-5 years I get a degree (assuming they graduate) and the privilege of working some 9 to 5 job for 35 years while somewhere hundreds of millions has been taken. I can't blame them.
BTN sure I'd take it as proactive. But I can twist it similarly as being reactive to the clout of ESPN and getting another player involved. BTN didn't get created on its own it created in "reaction" to ESPN's low offer. They went to ESPN first, Delany just didn't start it up without some reason.
The moves during the pandemic I would say be proactive as well.
You can say the UCLA/USC move is reactive and I agree with that. But I can also say there's nothing proactive about the SEC taking Texas/OU. You just doing nothing and someone coming to you and saying take me isn't proactive. That's mana from heaven falling in your lap. The B10 could have gone to Texas and tried (don't know that they didn't) but if they wanted the SEC well then there's nothing you can do about it. But while USC/UCLA may have been reactive, I'd say using that as first step to 20-24 team national conference is proactive but you could twist that too if you want.
I get your points and I'm not going to say they're wrong depending on how you want to look at things. My point is you can twist just about anything in whatever direction you want if you dig down enough.
I know in some of your posts you often are looking under the surface, hidden meaning, bts, conspiracy theory or whatever term you want to use. Sometimes I agree with that outlook but sometimes I just take things on the surface at face value for what they are.
Last edited:
We agree that they should be paid employees (especially given the new contract). As for how much... it'll be a negotiation. I put a number out there to show that given the size of the media contract, it's entirely feasible to pay every kid on the roster, and it won't bankrupt the athletic department.
Actually, Clemson is not a bad school.
US News ranking of National Universities has Clemson listed at 75 and Rutgers listed at 63.
Clemson is not an AAU Research University and main reason is that they are not big in the Health Professions.
Most AAU Research Universities have great Health Professions (Medicine etc.) which generate a huge amount of research funding.
The NSF published a recent Report Ranking of Schools by Total R&D Expenditures (Comparing Pitt, Rutgers and Clemson).
University of Pittsburgh: $1,105,532,000.
Rutgers University: $688,074,000.
Clemson University: $228,597,000.
HAIL TO PITT!!!!
Last edited:
It does seem like it's coming, but you make a good point here. Football is funding all the women's sports and Olympic men's sports. There's only about 25 schools that have athletic programs that make a profit. That leaves 105 schools that simply can't afford to pay their football players. They can't cut the other sports because they have to meet Title 9 compliance plus the NCAA has minimum team requirements, 6 for men and 9 for women.
If they allow football players to be paid, there will be only 25 schools that can really do it, making the difference in talent so large, that those 25 schools will need to be put into a separate level. There will need to be FCS, FBS, and a new semi-pro FBS.
We'll see how it plays out, but I think the NIL deals will put off player salaries for at least a little bit.
But what about the non-revenue sports mandated by Title IX? Screw them, no soup for you? That money made from football feeds the non-revenue sports and keeps them alive. Add it up, and soon you are eating up a lot of the media money.
Just wait. That will not be enough. It will never be enough for some of them.
1- No, you cannot twist BTN into being some other conference making a similar move. a REACTIVE example to creation of BTN? Lognhorn "network", PAC12 Network. Would Texas or the PAC been better off being the first-mover.. being the PROACTIVE leader? Maybe.
2- The test for proactive/reactive in regard to Texas/OU is wether the SEC did it because of a threat from some other conference. They did not. It was proactive by Texas and the SEC.. maybe ESPN involved.. we know how they are. If ESPN was it might be reactive by them.. reacting to the upcoming Big Ten contract negotiations. Oklahoma likely just reacted and said yes, follow Texas.
It is not a case of twisting things, spinning things. You know the effort it takes to do that. It is a conscious decision to do that... unless you have been programmed/biased in some way.. and we do see a lot of that these days... like that is not human history...
check this out.. 50 years of conference realignments
My lesson from that story.. Texas' greed and entitlement destroyed the SWC and then both the Big XII and their predecessor the Big 8 and now, tail wagging, they crawl into the SEC when they were first asked in 1992.
Last edited:
It will be a negotiation. Each conference will compete with the other conferences to set a competitive rate of compensation with their players.
I said this early on. The Big Ten can be a trail blazer in this area and provide revenue sharing opportunities for their athletes.
Just because colleges have used football revenues to subsidize other programs doesn’t mean it is a good idea. If non-revenue sports are part of a school‘s mission, they should be funded, it doesn’t matter if there is revenue available from football or not.
This is something nobody is thinking about. At least I haven't heard it brought up anywhere. Football makes a profit and players want to be paid. I get that, and that seems fair. However, whatever you pay the football players, you'll have to pay all the women's teams members. That would be a huge expense. I can't imagine that you could pay a football player, but not all women an equal amount without it being in violation of title IX.
It's been brought up in other threads. Title IX does not apply to employees, it applies to students. If the players are employees with tuition, room, and board as benefits, then title IX likely wouldn't apply. Also, It's mentioned above as another possible loophole--schools could sign individual marketing deals (NIL) with football and basketball players. There's no requirement that marketing dollars be spent equally on men and women. Don't get me wrong, it would all get challenged in court, but one way or another, it'll likely happen.
The most underrated move by B1G leadership and school presidents at the time, which has impacted everything so far and will continue to for the next 10-12 years, is the decision by the B1G to “delay gratification” when teams were added in the middle of TV deals.
The desire of the ACC and SEC to immediately monetize their conference additions had the price of dampening the financial impact of those additions (because they had little leverage with ESPN) and giving ESPN more term before they get their content to the open market.
After seeing this week’s B1G news I bet there aren’t many SEC people who would in hindsight trade waiting until 2034 in return getting a revenue bump when they added Missouri and Texas A&M.
This is a good question/point. But there's no getting around the point that the Big 10 is literally printing money - to the tune of >$1 BILLION per year in the near future. The players see what we see - how could they possibly not want a piece of the pie? Let's say a salary pool for all Big 10 D1 athletes was set up - call it $5 million or $10 million a year. Does not seem like an unreasonable ask for institutions that are raking in $100 million a year on media rights alone.
pay them after school, league, etc expenses are done. if it happens, and I'm against it, then make it tight
I'm not gonna get into this more than already have. You can take me as brainwashed sheep if you like, that's fine lol.
They make the school and tv networks billions. Coaches get paid millions. Why shouldn’t the players, who make it all happen, get paid?
Mention this not for the Warren quotes but for the Rittenberg comments. A radio interview of his awhile back didn't even give the impression that it would be in that 2 year window I've thought more expansion might happen...sounded like even sooner than that.
