Football BIG TEN CONFERENCE ANNOUNCES GROUNDBREAKING MEDIA RIGHTS AGREEMENTS

RUTGERS95

Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Sep 28, 2005
34,149
1,962
113


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.
I agree, move now and get it done and begin the revenue watch/modeling for future.

ND has to recognize they could out looking in
 
  • Like
Reactions: bigmatt718

Knight Shift

Legend
May 19, 2011
67,435
61,285
113
Jersey Shore
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.
Oh @mildone , found a live one for you!


kid sheep GIF
 
  • Haha
Reactions: rutgersguy1

Knight Shift

Legend
May 19, 2011
67,435
61,285
113
Jersey Shore
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.
Then as employees, could the female "employee-athletes" bring and employment discrimination suit?
 

theRU

All American
Gold Member
Dec 17, 2008
8,640
5,659
113
Aliso Viejo, CA
$50 for internet, $70 for Hulu Live. Pretty simple.
So cord cutting used to signify paying for Internet only and using something like Kodi to get channels. Paying a different piper $70 for a limited number of channels means folks are still paying for a TV package.

I had a run where I truly cut the cord, but then all the cable companies started charging more for Internet only packages and it didn't make sense anymore.

Now I've got net, cable, Netflix, Hulu, paramount, HBO, peacock..all busting out my a$$. Lol
 

satnom

All Conference
Gold Member
Jun 29, 2002
4,710
4,473
113
Holy Cow. Didn't realize how strong this new money is until I picked this up online:

Annual national media revenue, per reports of deals:
NFL: $10B per year
EPL: $4.2B per year
NBA: $2.6B per year
MLB: $1.96B per year
BIG TEN: $1.07B per year
NHL: $625M per year
SEC: $588M per year

This conference absolutely dwarfs SEC money going forward
Agree. The elephant in the room now is:

Annual national media revenue, per reports of deals:
NFL: $10B per year - shares revenue with players
EPL: $4.2B per year - shares revenue with players
NBA: $2.6B per year - shares revenue with players
MLB: $1.96B per year - shares revenue with players
BIG TEN: $1.07B per year - no player expense
NHL: $625M per year - shares revenue with players
SEC: $588M per year - no player expense

Seems like Warren knows this is an issue that will have to be addressed sooner rather than later and the BIG may lead the way for others to follow.

GO RU
 

satnom

All Conference
Gold Member
Jun 29, 2002
4,710
4,473
113
Well with the new contract the B10 is in front of the NHL according to tweets I saw. Only MLB, NBA, NFL are in front but if the B10 grows bigger maybe they would catch the MLB as well.

I didn't verify these numbers but saw these tweets online.


LMAO that ESPN duped the SEC and ACC into media agreements lasting another 9 and 14 more years respectively while the BIG keeps its agreements to 6-7 year intervals.

BIG playing chess while other leagues are playing checkers.

GO RU
 

RUforlife

All Conference
Oct 27, 2002
2,778
3,457
113
I'm against paying players. They come away with a degree, chance at millions etc for their services. No way do I agree with it

title ix will screw this up
At some point in our lifetime P5 football players will be classified as employees of the university, at that point Title IX becomes irrelevant. Now I know some people say I only want to watch Rutgers student athletes play football, that is a legitimate point of view, so those people can pull up a chair and watch an intramural football game on campus. I don't think most people will care, they will still represent Rutgers and wear a Rutgers uniform. The faculty are employees, but if one of them wins the Nobel Prize everyone connected to the university is proud, celebrates, and brags about it. No real difference for sports, if our football team comprised of young men who are employees win the National Championship game against an Alabama team made up of young men who are employees of Alabama I guarantee those who follow and support Rutgers will celebrate the win.
 

West Point Knight

Heisman Winner
Jan 1, 2005
13,539
8,868
113
LMAO that ESPN duped the SEC and ACC into media agreements lasting another 9 and 14 more years respectively while the BIG keeps its agreements to 6-7 year intervals.

BIG playing chess while other leagues are playing checkers.

GO RU
Morgan Freeman Reaction GIF by MOODMAN
 

Ty Webb

All American
Jul 24, 2001
8,170
318
83
I agree, move now and get it done and begin the revenue watch/modeling for future.

ND has to recognize they could out looking in

Every time expansion comes up/happens, BIG fans start talking about how ND can't 1) survive as an independent, 2) will miss their chance to join 3) will get cut out of the playoffs 4) won't be able to schedule anyone.

The biggest issue facing ND isn't getting left out. The biggest issue they are facing is how they trying to adapt to the NIL realities.
 

rutgersguy1

Hall of Famer
Dec 17, 2008
34,215
11,021
113
But will not Dan Murphy's scenario pose Title IX issues if only football players get paid through NIL?
I don't know all the rules and what not. They don't have it all worked out so I certainly don't lol. I do like the idea of the conferences paying rather than the schools. I agree with the notion of trying to avoid the employee/employer structure with schools.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Knight Shift

brgRC90

Hall of Famer
Apr 8, 2008
33,033
13,540
113
Whether anyone agrees with it or not, given the ever large amounts of cash coming into programs soon, anyone who is a part of the cash machine (or thinks they are) is going to demand a piece of the action. That's human nature. I suspect that might also be, as some are suggesting, non-revenue sports (and remember that sometimes certain non-revenue sports fill air time, too. Does that entitle those sports to more money?). Women will complain about unequal treatment, no matter if their sports are money losers (see WNBA). Academics will complain, taxpayers, students, louder than ever There must be a fairy tale or Aesop's fable that addresses the idea of getting all the riches you ever wished for and finding out that the windfall is not quite as wonderful as you expected. It looks great at the outset for the programs ready to see a lot more money but the endgame might not be what was hoped for. Certainly a lot of noise should be expected as pigs line up at a bigger trough.
 
Last edited:

RUTGERS95

Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Sep 28, 2005
34,149
1,962
113
Whether anyone agrees with it or not, given the ever large amounts of cash coming into programs soon, anyone who is a part of the cash machine (or thinks they are) is going to demand a piece of the action. That's human nature. I suspect that might also be, as some are suggesting, non-revenue sports (and remember that sometimes certain non-revenue sports fill air time, too. Does that entitle those sports to more money?). Women will complain about unequal treatment, no matter if their sports are money losers (see WNBA). Academics will complain, taxpayers, students, louder than ever There must be a fairy tale or Aesop's fable that addresses the idea of getting all the riches you ever wished for and finding out that the windfall is not quite as wonderful as you expected. It looks great at the outset for the programs ready to see a lot more money but the endgame might not be what was hoped for. Certainly a lot of noise should be expected as pigs line up at a bigger trough.
dude, you're batting a 1.000!
 

WhoRU?

Junior
Gold Member
Feb 5, 2003
825
616
93
Then as employees, could the female "employee-athletes" bring and employment discrimination suit?
The WNBA pays less than the NBA because the revenue earned by the teams is less. Same applies here. Plus, employment law (EEOC) says you are not allowed to hire based on gender (among other characteristics). You can try to recruit more diverse pools of applicants, and you can do more to keep folks onboard once they are hired. But you can't consider gender when hiring and you can't set quotas.

None of this will stop folks from suing. The only ones getting rich on this will be the lawyers:)
 
  • Like
Reactions: RUTGERS95

rutgersguy1

Hall of Famer
Dec 17, 2008
34,215
11,021
113
I’ve seen some reporters brush off the idea that escalators are in all tv contracts so it doesn’t mean anything. I have read before that they are in contracts but this is the first time I’ve seen it explicitly reported on with a figure. Sounds like it’s also the first time for the former Fox sports prez.

 

Knight Shift

Legend
May 19, 2011
67,435
61,285
113
Jersey Shore
I’ve seen some reporters brush off the idea that escalators are in all tv contracts so it doesn’t mean anything. I have read before that they are in contracts but this is the first time I’ve seen it explicitly reported on with a figure. Sounds like it’s also the first time for the former Fox sports prez.

What's Bob's problem. Why is it putting a knife in his back?
 

pmvon

All American
Jan 30, 2007
6,917
6,426
113
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.
What % of college football players at the D1 level make it to the pros? What % of those actually stay and make real money?

the vast vast majority will rely on their degree for their careers.

how many times do people have to say this. They are not making millions and billions. RU will still be in the red next year. These are revenue numbers not profit.


here you go. 1.6% chance of going pro. All of this NIL crap is losing sight of what’s important for 98% of kids.

https://ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/research/pro_beyond/2020RES_ProbabilityBeyondHSFiguresMethod.pdf
 
Last edited:

rutgersguy1

Hall of Famer
Dec 17, 2008
34,215
11,021
113
What's Bob's problem. Why is it putting a knife in his back?
It’s business not personal. Honestly, I’m not sure what move GK can make. Whether it’s in the next couple years or 5 years or whenever..once the B10 comes calling again it’s gonna set a chain reaction that I don’t think the PAC can survive in any meaningful way.
 
Mar 1, 2022
603
529
93
At some point in our lifetime P5 football players will be classified as employees of the university, at that point Title IX becomes irrelevant. Now I know some people say I only want to watch Rutgers student athletes play football, that is a legitimate point of view, so those people can pull up a chair and watch an intramural football game on campus. I don't think most people will care, they will still represent Rutgers and wear a Rutgers uniform. The faculty are employees, but if one of them wins the Nobel Prize everyone connected to the university is proud, celebrates, and brags about it. No real difference for sports, if our football team comprised of young men who are employees win the National Championship game against an Alabama team made up of young men who are employees of Alabama I guarantee those who follow and support Rutgers will celebrate the win.
What happens when the Rutgers administration (and faculty, students, local sports media) WHO HATE MAJOR COLLEGE ATHLETICS say, "Terrific, we'll take in all that money, but we're not paying for good players, and we really don't care if we go 0-11 every year for the next two decades. Maybe we'll beat Northwestern once or twice."? You're talking about winning a national championship; the reality is you're looking at permanent school-imposed doormat status (and maybe being thrown out of the professional college football conference - btw, there goes the $, too).

Kevin Warren might be a dope (frankly, he should be fired for even suggesting paying players is an option), but the school Presidents are not. There's a greater likelihood of the SEC and Big Ten banning NIL, than there is of a unionized college athletics with revenue sharing.
 

RUforlife

All Conference
Oct 27, 2002
2,778
3,457
113
What happens when the Rutgers administration (and faculty, students, local sports media) WHO HATE MAJOR COLLEGE ATHLETICS say, "Terrific, we'll take in all that money, but we're not paying for good players, and we really don't care if we go 0-11 every year for the next two decades. Maybe we'll beat Northwestern once or twice."? You're talking about winning a national championship; the reality is you're looking at permanent school-imposed doormat status (and maybe being thrown out of the professional college football conference - btw, there goes the $, too).

Kevin Warren might be a dope (frankly, he should be fired for even suggesting paying players is an option), but the school Presidents are not. There's a greater likelihood of the SEC and Big Ten banning NIL, than there is of a unionized college athletics with revenue sharing.
NIL is right won in court, the universities can not ban it. The presidents of the P5 universities are extremely greedy and many of them are very corrupt. They will chase the $svevery chance they get, the days of the student athlete as we know it is over, there is no going back.
 
Mar 1, 2022
603
529
93
NIL is right won in court, the universities can not ban it.
They definitely can ... the Supreme Court explicitly said the conferences and the universities could do whatever they wanted regarding NIL. The ruling only said the NCAA was prohibited from banning NIL because of its monopoly status. The individual conferences and the individual schools in those conferences do not have a monopoly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pmvon and RUTGERS95

RUforlife

All Conference
Oct 27, 2002
2,778
3,457
113
They definitely can ... the Supreme Court explicitly said the conferences and the universities could do whatever they wanted regarding NIL. The ruling only said the NCAA was prohibited from banning NIL because of its monopoly status. The individual conferences and the individual schools in those conferences do not have a monopoly.
Correct, the Court stated that the District Ct's "injunction applies only to the NCAA and multiconference agreements; individual conferences remain free to reimpose every single enjoined restraint tomorrow—or more restrictive ones still." However, that is in reality a moot point, the SEC is not going to restrict NIL $s and the B1G is not going to commit suicide and blow up its billion $ business. Multiconference agreements are also not allowed, so it is not like the P5 can as a group agree to limit NIL $s.
 
Last edited:
Mar 1, 2022
603
529
93
However, that is in reality a moot point, the SEC is not going to restrict NIL $s and the B1G is not going to commit suicide and blow up its billion $ business. Multiconference agreements are also not allowed, so it is not like the P5 can as a group agree to limit NIL $s.
I used to think there was no way the SEC would ever restrict NIL ... then Saban came out adamantly against it. Now? I'm not so sure. Why would a school want to get involved in having to pay players if it doesn't have to. The conference bans NIL and *poof* overnight that problem disappears. If the SEC did it, the Big 10 would follow the next day. And those are the only two conferences that matter anymore.
 

RUforlife

All Conference
Oct 27, 2002
2,778
3,457
113
I used to think there was no way the SEC would ever restrict NIL ... then Saban came out adamantly against it. Now? I'm not so sure. Why would a school want to get involved in having to pay players if it doesn't have to. The conference bans NIL and *poof* overnight that problem disappears. If the SEC did it, the Big 10 would follow the next day. And those are the only two conferences that matter anymore.
That is called collusion, how did it work out for Major League Baseball owners? If the two big conferences went that direction "independently" the players would be in court the next day and they would win just like the baseball players always do.
 
Mar 1, 2022
603
529
93
That is called collusion, how did it work out for Major League Baseball owners? If the two big conferences went that direction "independently" the players would be in court the next day and they would win just like the baseball players always do.
It's not collusion unless you collude. If both conferences come to the decision independently, it's not collusion.

COURT: Why did you, the SEC, ban NIL?

SEC: Because we've existed for X amount of years without NIL and we feel that's the best way to accomplish our academic mission.

COURT: Why did you, the Big 10, ban NIL?

BIG TEN: Because we've existed for X amount of years without NIL and we feel that's the best way to accomplish our academic mission.

COURT: Why did you choose to implement the ban now?

BOTH CONFERENCES: We didn't change things, the Supreme Court did. And the Supreme Court said if we didn't like the way things were changed, it could be reinstated on a conference-by-conference basis. We watched NIL for a year and, just like everyone predicted, it turned into a complete shitshow immediately. So now we're going back to the way we always did it.

COURT: The players say you colluded. Did anyone from the SEC leadership discuss NIL bans with anyone from Big 10 leadership?

BOTH CONFERENCES: No.
 
Last edited:

pmvon

All American
Jan 30, 2007
6,917
6,426
113
Agree. The elephant in the room now is:

Annual national media revenue, per reports of deals:
NFL: $10B per year - shares revenue with players
EPL: $4.2B per year - shares revenue with players
NBA: $2.6B per year - shares revenue with players
MLB: $1.96B per year - shares revenue with players
BIG TEN: $1.07B per year - no player expense
NHL: $625M per year - shares revenue with players
SEC: $588M per year - no player expense

Seems like Warren knows this is an issue that will have to be addressed sooner rather than later and the BIG may lead the way for others to follow.

GO RU
Oh really. No player expense. What’s the aggregate BIG ten athletic budget?
 

RUforlife

All Conference
Oct 27, 2002
2,778
3,457
113
It's not collusion unless you collude. If both conferences come to the decision independently, it's not collusion.
That is the exact argument the professional sports team owners use, it never works. Seeing their top competitor significantly handicap themselves by imposing an NIL ban the fiercely competitive B1G and SEC are not going to take advantage of that situation which could lead to millions/billions of $s in additional revenue for their member schools, but will instead decide to handicap themselves and forgo that potential revenue windfall. It doesn't pass the smell test, just like every baseball owner not offering market rates for free agents.
 
Mar 1, 2022
603
529
93
That is the exact argument the professional sports team owners use, it never works. Seeing their top competitor significantly handicap themselves by imposing an NIL ban the fiercely competitive B1G and SEC are not going to take advantage of that situation which could lead to millions/billions of $s in additional revenue for their member schools, but will instead decide to handicap themselves and forgo that potential revenue windfall. It doesn't pass the smell test, just like every baseball owner not offering market rates for free agents.
The Supreme Court literally said they could do it six months ago. How are you going to call it prima facie evidence of collusion if the Supreme Court literally said that if the conferences didn't like their (the Court's) remedy, it could reimplement old policy themselves?
 

NickRU714

All American
Aug 18, 2009
7,347
6,184
113
It's not collusion unless you collude. If both conferences come to the decision independently, it's not collusion.

COURT: Why did you, the SEC, ban NIL?

SEC: Because we've existed for X amount of years without NIL and we feel that's the best way to accomplish our academic mission.

COURT: Why did you, the Big 10, ban NIL?

BIG TEN: Because we've existed for X amount of years without NIL and we feel that's the best way to accomplish our academic mission.

COURT: Why did you choose to implement the ban now?

BOTH CONFERENCES: We didn't change things, the Supreme Court did. And the Supreme Court said if we didn't like the way things were changed, it could be reinstated on a conference-by-conference basis. We watched NIL for a year and, just like everyone predicted, it turned into a complete shitshow immediately. So now we're going back to the way we always did it.

COURT: The players say you colluded. Did anyone from the SEC leadership discuss NIL bans with anyone from Big 10 leadership?

BOTH CONFERENCES: No.

Why would Big Ten ban NIL after the SEC?
That's would be of the worst decisions ever.

We immediately have a recruiting advantage that even Alabama couldn't compete with.

Alabama: We can offer a chance at conference championships, CFB appearances, high level bowls and potentially a national championship.

Rutgers: We can't offer any of that. But we can offer you thousands of dollars directly that Alabama can't.

SEC banning NIL would be a godsend for the Big Ten and specifically Rutgers (who can't currently compete with any of those other items).
 

ScarletDave

Heisman Winner
Oct 7, 2010
10,402
11,376
113
Does anyone know if any of this money goes to Notre Dame (hockey) or John’s Hopkins (lacrosse) ?
 
Mar 1, 2022
603
529
93
Why would Big Ten ban NIL after the SEC?
That's would be of the worst decisions ever.

We immediately have a recruiting advantage that even Alabama couldn't compete with.

Alabama: We can offer a chance at conference championships, CFB appearances, high level bowls and potentially a national championship.

Rutgers: We can't offer any of that. But we can offer you thousands of dollars directly that Alabama can't.

SEC banning NIL would be a godsend for the Big Ten and specifically Rutgers (who can't currently compete with any of those other items).
The Big Ten would do it for the same reason the SEC would do it ... there's a big pile of money and they don't want to share it with anyone (players). Additionally, buying players is a recruiting annoyance that 99% of all coaches and athletic departments do not want to have to deal with.
 

RUforlife

All Conference
Oct 27, 2002
2,778
3,457
113
The Supreme Court literally said they could do it six months ago. How are you going to call it prima facie evidence of collusion if the Supreme Court literally said that if the conferences didn't like their (the Court's) remedy, it could reimplement old policy themselves?
Independently, not collectively. To begin with for it to work both conferences would have to either eliminate the NIL or impose the same monetary restrictions on NIL payments. It doesn't work if the B1G eliminates the payments and the SEC only restricts them to a certain $ amount, the B1G is not going to want to be placed in such a disadvantage, and likewise if they both just limited the NIL payments it only works if their limitations are in line with each other, otherwise one conference would have a large advantage. That is the basis for a collusion claim. There is no way if the B1G and SEC both decided to do away or limit NIL money that would survive a court challenge.
 
Mar 1, 2022
603
529
93
That is the basis for a collusion claim. There is no way if the B1G and SEC both decided to do away or limit NIL money that would survive a court challenge.
I disagree and I don't even think it's a close case (absent real evidence of collusion, like a witness or emails).
 

Latest posts