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
Football BIG TEN CONFERENCE ANNOUNCES GROUNDBREAKING MEDIA RIGHTS AGREEMENTS
- Thread starter ChrisNalwasky
- Start date
ND has to recognize they could out looking in
Then as employees, could the female "employee-athletes" bring and employment discrimination suit?
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
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
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
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.
A
anon_ivydyf0amkzay
Guest
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.
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.
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:
Hey! That‘s a video of and one of my siblings back when we were young. Amazing find.
Stroud will find out his true worth in the next NFL draft. What he's getting at OSU is chicken feed compared to his NFL contract
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:)
Last edited:
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 % 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:
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.
Because they already get paid and most would do it for free.
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.
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:
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.
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:
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?
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).
Does anyone know if any of this money goes to Notre Dame (hockey) or John’s Hopkins (lacrosse) ?
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.
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.
I disagree and I don't even think it's a close case (absent real evidence of collusion, like a witness or emails).
