(01-20-2022 01:31 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-20-2022 01:08 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-20-2022 12:33 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Rutgers has had to operate with the B1G policy of phasing in revenue shares for newcomers. Maryland and UNL also experienced that. Yes, they all agreed to these policies to join, but they put them at a disadvantage compared to other B1G members anyway.

We won't really know whether Rutgers athletics can make money until they are (a) getting a full share of B1G income and (b) have paid off all the loans they took from the B1G the past eight years.

And that won't be for several more years, because those loans are still out there.

Beyond that, FT is IMO correct, Rutgers is the biggest of all realignment winners. To go from G5 to the B1G was epic, even with the B1G's newcomer distribution policies.

Yes. Rutgers gets the lowest conference distributions in the P5. Maryland is the 2nd lowest. Prior to the Big 10 adding Rutgers and Maryland, Nebraska was the lowest. Nebraska got a really bad deal from the Big 10, much worse than the deals Colorado, Utah, WVU, TCU, Missouri, Texas A&M, Pitt and Syracuse got. At one point I calculated Nebraska was $50 million behind Iowa St. in conference distributions since they left the Big 12. For example, in 2015-16 Nebraska got about $22 million from the Big 10. The Pac 12 was the bottom conference in distributions that year with $28.7 million. Big 12 was $30.4 million.

However, Rutgers got a big raise from the AAC level of distributions. It did still leave them well behind every other P5. I don't know what they got in 2015-16, but 2014-15, it was
Full Big 10 members 32.0
Maryland 24.5
Nebraska 18.7
Rutgers 10.0
ACC 19.2
Pac approx. 20
SEC 20.9
Big 12 21.2

One thing to take into account is that the Big Ten wasn't just reducing the new members' shares for sake of reducing them, but rather the Big Ten was unique in that it actually had (and still has) an equity stake in the BTN that the other leagues didn't have. (The Pac-12 has their network now, but it didn't exist when the CU and Utah were invited. The ACC and SEC Networks are pure third party rights deals without any equity.) The idea behind the reduced payouts was that the new members were essentially earning more equity in the BTN with each passing year.

That's a good point about BTN equity.

A little while ago I attempted to address that, looking at the approximate value of the BTN in 2012, the time of the Maryland/Rutgers invitations. My conclusion was that the B1G reduced payouts to Rutgers by far more than the value of a share of the BTN. Of course, maybe I was wrong, but here's what I came up with:

https://csnbbs.com/thread-928817-post-17...id17640824

(01-20-2022 01:31 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-20-2022 01:08 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-20-2022 12:33 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Rutgers has had to operate with the B1G policy of phasing in revenue shares for newcomers. Maryland and UNL also experienced that. Yes, they all agreed to these policies to join, but they put them at a disadvantage compared to other B1G members anyway.

We won't really know whether Rutgers athletics can make money until they are (a) getting a full share of B1G income and (b) have paid off all the loans they took from the B1G the past eight years.

And that won't be for several more years, because those loans are still out there.

Beyond that, FT is IMO correct, Rutgers is the biggest of all realignment winners. To go from G5 to the B1G was epic, even with the B1G's newcomer distribution policies.

Yes. Rutgers gets the lowest conference distributions in the P5. Maryland is the 2nd lowest. Prior to the Big 10 adding Rutgers and Maryland, Nebraska was the lowest. Nebraska got a really bad deal from the Big 10, much worse than the deals Colorado, Utah, WVU, TCU, Missouri, Texas A&M, Pitt and Syracuse got. At one point I calculated Nebraska was $50 million behind Iowa St. in conference distributions since they left the Big 12. For example, in 2015-16 Nebraska got about $22 million from the Big 10. The Pac 12 was the bottom conference in distributions that year with $28.7 million. Big 12 was $30.4 million.

However, Rutgers got a big raise from the AAC level of distributions. It did still leave them well behind every other P5. I don't know what they got in 2015-16, but 2014-15, it was
Full Big 10 members 32.0
Maryland 24.5
Nebraska 18.7
Rutgers 10.0
ACC 19.2
Pac approx. 20
SEC 20.9
Big 12 21.2

One thing to take into account is that the Big Ten wasn't just reducing the new members' shares for sake of reducing them, but rather the Big Ten was unique in that it actually had (and still has) an equity stake in the BTN that the other leagues didn't have. (The Pac-12 has their network now, but it didn't exist when the CU and Utah were invited. The ACC and SEC Networks are pure third party rights deals without any equity.) The idea behind the reduced payouts was that the new members were essentially earning more equity in the BTN with each passing year.

Ehh?

The BTN equity issue makes sense in theory. But in reality, the B1G used the BTN principally as an excuse (a PR tool). Schools wanted admissions to this club, and the B1G used expansion to financially reward legacy members for expanding the conference. What the B1G did was more like the B12's partial payments to TCU and West Virginia. They wanted new members to pay for the privileges of joining the conference. Which is very different than how the ACC, PAC or SEC approached expansion.

Conference distributions to new members varied wildly in the B1G. Rutgers and Maryland almost immediately enabled many new high-end subscribers into the BTN footprint. Valuation of the BTN decreased as the media model changed. All these issues can't be swept under-the-rug as unintended windfalls to legacy members...nor unexpected costs to new members. Not arguing that the B1G and B12 have the wrong financial model for expansion, but it is different than other P5 conferences.

Here is MD's reality from 2020:

https://247sports.com/college/maryland/A...142855702/

• Maryland athletics received more than $42 million in revenue from the Big Ten in the 2019 fiscal year, an increase of more than $1 million from the 2018 fiscal year. As always, a large chunk came from conference football revenues, specifically bowl games. While Maryland's basketball-related Big Ten share was $6,051,400, its football share was $24,205,600. The remaining $10 million-plus wasn't related to a specific sport. Maryland's payouts remain lower than those of fully-vested conference members, which includes everyone else except Rutgers and totaled more than $54 million per school in the 2018-2019 year (2019-2020 numbers haven't been made public). Maryland and Rutgers become fully vested members in 2021.
• Maryland's operating expenses grew by nearly $11 million to $108,785,924, the majority of which appears to result from those severance payments. Operating revenues totaled $108.8 million, a similar increase from the previous year. Much of that $11 revenue increase is classified as direct institutional support, or funds allocated from the university in the form of state funds, tuition waivers, federal work study support and endowments.
• Men's basketball ticket sales totaled $6,318,340, a slight decrease from $6,691,236 the previous fiscal year. Football ticket sales totaled $5.9 million, about $1 million less than the previous year. This is another illustration of the ripple effect of last year's controversy and the on-field struggles of the program, which has gone 12-24 overall during the past three seasons. For comparison: Big Ten powerhouse Ohio State generated nearly $60 million from ticket sales in the 2018-2019 fiscal year.
• Head basketball coach Mark Turgeon's total take rose by about a quarter-million dollars, to $3.1 million, likely placing him just outside of the top-20 among college basketball coaches. Head football coach Mike Locksley made $2.1 million. The next-highest paid head coach remained women's basketball coach Brenda Frese, at $1.3 million.
• Contributions to the athletic department totaled $11.2 million, a $500,000 decrease form the previous year.
• Revenues from parking and concessions at athletic events fell by about $100,000, to $1.6 million.
• Women's basketball again accounted for the largest net deficit of any Maryland team. The program generated $2.1 million and spent $4.4 million.
• Men's basketball spent almost $282,000 on recruiting. That's an increase from the $199,000 it spent the previous year, which was the 46th-highest recruiting expenditure in the country and the 12th-highest in the 14 team Big Ten.
• Maryland basketball assistants made $977,526, a near-$200,000 decrease from the previous season.
• Maryland football spent $548,699 on recruiting, less than $10,000 more than it did the previous year, when it ranked 44th nationally in recruiting spend.
• Total athletics debt sits at $24.3 million, meaning the department cut more than $4.6 million from its debt from the previous fiscal year.
• Royalties, sponsorships and advertising revenue decreased by about $2.5 million, to $8.85 million.

That $10 million chunk to MD from the B10 is advanced earnings against future distributions. They also plugged in about $14 million in student fees/direct support from the University general fund.

Rutgers is more open about their reality than MD who continues to dissemble. It's like crowing about getting a 10K raise but having to move to NYC. When your mom asks does it cost more to live there you lie to her but she knows you are a fool.

(01-20-2022 11:06 AM)Statefan Wrote:  

(01-20-2022 11:01 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  The key quote to me (from the end of the article):
“This is the second consecutive year that Rutgers athletics rang up a $73 million operating budget shortfall.”
Seems like Rutgers is coming clean with their financial struggles. They’ve been borrowing money from the school ($250M) and B10 ($40M) to upgrade their athletics over the past decade. The school will likely forgive some of its loans…good luck getting any reprieve from the B10. Rutgers leadership funded their athletics, but they still haven’t created a booster base (and the pandemic doesn’t help).

MD has the same problem but to a lesser degree as they have run a defacto deficit of around $15-$20 million a year. Running a college sports program in the midst of robust professional markets is a losing proposition. When I say robust I don't mean just one pro franchise but 5 or 6. Rutgers competes with 2 NFL and 2 MLB franchises and 2 NHL and 2 NBA franchises. MD competes with 2 NFL, 2 MLB, 1 NBA, and 1 NHL. A total of 8 NFL, NBA, MLB, and NHL franchises in Los Angeles is cutting into UCLA and USC.

When the semi-casual fan has so many choices, even if they are a University athletic booster, they have many other choices to watch games in a venue or in a time slot that better fits who they decide to take to the game.

Interestingly more than one search of "which schools are in the wrong conference" in the past has suggested that Maryland should be competing at the G5 level (in the AAC).
Some markets are tougher to compete in than others, obviously DC has limited collegiate appeal.

(01-20-2022 02:23 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(01-20-2022 01:31 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-20-2022 01:08 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-20-2022 12:33 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Rutgers has had to operate with the B1G policy of phasing in revenue shares for newcomers. Maryland and UNL also experienced that. Yes, they all agreed to these policies to join, but they put them at a disadvantage compared to other B1G members anyway.

We won't really know whether Rutgers athletics can make money until they are (a) getting a full share of B1G income and (b) have paid off all the loans they took from the B1G the past eight years.

And that won't be for several more years, because those loans are still out there.

Beyond that, FT is IMO correct, Rutgers is the biggest of all realignment winners. To go from G5 to the B1G was epic, even with the B1G's newcomer distribution policies.

Yes. Rutgers gets the lowest conference distributions in the P5. Maryland is the 2nd lowest. Prior to the Big 10 adding Rutgers and Maryland, Nebraska was the lowest. Nebraska got a really bad deal from the Big 10, much worse than the deals Colorado, Utah, WVU, TCU, Missouri, Texas A&M, Pitt and Syracuse got. At one point I calculated Nebraska was $50 million behind Iowa St. in conference distributions since they left the Big 12. For example, in 2015-16 Nebraska got about $22 million from the Big 10. The Pac 12 was the bottom conference in distributions that year with $28.7 million. Big 12 was $30.4 million.

However, Rutgers got a big raise from the AAC level of distributions. It did still leave them well behind every other P5. I don't know what they got in 2015-16, but 2014-15, it was
Full Big 10 members 32.0
Maryland 24.5
Nebraska 18.7
Rutgers 10.0
ACC 19.2
Pac approx. 20
SEC 20.9
Big 12 21.2

One thing to take into account is that the Big Ten wasn't just reducing the new members' shares for sake of reducing them, but rather the Big Ten was unique in that it actually had (and still has) an equity stake in the BTN that the other leagues didn't have. (The Pac-12 has their network now, but it didn't exist when the CU and Utah were invited. The ACC and SEC Networks are pure third party rights deals without any equity.) The idea behind the reduced payouts was that the new members were essentially earning more equity in the BTN with each passing year.

Ehh?

The BTN equity issue makes sense in theory. But in reality, the B1G used the BTN principally as an excuse (a PR tool). Schools wanted admissions to this club, and the B1G used expansion to financially reward legacy members for expanding the conference. What the B1G did was more like the B12's partial payments to TCU and West Virginia. They wanted new members to pay for the privileges of joining the conference. Which is very different than how the ACC, PAC or SEC approached expansion.

Conference distributions to new members varied wildly in the B1G. Rutgers and Maryland almost immediately enabled many new high-end subscribers into the BTN footprint. Valuation of the BTN decreased as the media model changed. All these issues can't be swept under-the-rug as unintended windfalls to legacy members...nor unexpected costs to new members. Not arguing that the B1G and B12 have the wrong financial model for expansion, but it is different than other P5 conferences.

The Pac 12 and Big 12 approached it similarly. CU and Utah got lower payouts. CU worked a better deal than Utah. Not sure how Pitt and SU and Louisville's deals worked. A&M and Missouri got virtually full shares from the start in the SEC.

TCU and WVU ended up getting about a $25-$30 million reduction from the payout for the continuing schools. Theirs was a 50% distribution, 67%, 75%, 83%, 85%, to 100% deal over 6 years (not certain on the 83 & 85%, but it was similar to that). Nebraska, Maryland and Rutgers are paying close to $100 million.

(01-20-2022 03:42 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-20-2022 02:23 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(01-20-2022 01:31 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-20-2022 01:08 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-20-2022 12:33 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Rutgers has had to operate with the B1G policy of phasing in revenue shares for newcomers. Maryland and UNL also experienced that. Yes, they all agreed to these policies to join, but they put them at a disadvantage compared to other B1G members anyway.

We won't really know whether Rutgers athletics can make money until they are (a) getting a full share of B1G income and (b) have paid off all the loans they took from the B1G the past eight years.

And that won't be for several more years, because those loans are still out there.

Beyond that, FT is IMO correct, Rutgers is the biggest of all realignment winners. To go from G5 to the B1G was epic, even with the B1G's newcomer distribution policies.

Yes. Rutgers gets the lowest conference distributions in the P5. Maryland is the 2nd lowest. Prior to the Big 10 adding Rutgers and Maryland, Nebraska was the lowest. Nebraska got a really bad deal from the Big 10, much worse than the deals Colorado, Utah, WVU, TCU, Missouri, Texas A&M, Pitt and Syracuse got. At one point I calculated Nebraska was $50 million behind Iowa St. in conference distributions since they left the Big 12. For example, in 2015-16 Nebraska got about $22 million from the Big 10. The Pac 12 was the bottom conference in distributions that year with $28.7 million. Big 12 was $30.4 million.

However, Rutgers got a big raise from the AAC level of distributions. It did still leave them well behind every other P5. I don't know what they got in 2015-16, but 2014-15, it was
Full Big 10 members 32.0
Maryland 24.5
Nebraska 18.7
Rutgers 10.0
ACC 19.2
Pac approx. 20
SEC 20.9
Big 12 21.2

One thing to take into account is that the Big Ten wasn't just reducing the new members' shares for sake of reducing them, but rather the Big Ten was unique in that it actually had (and still has) an equity stake in the BTN that the other leagues didn't have. (The Pac-12 has their network now, but it didn't exist when the CU and Utah were invited. The ACC and SEC Networks are pure third party rights deals without any equity.) The idea behind the reduced payouts was that the new members were essentially earning more equity in the BTN with each passing year.

Ehh?

The BTN equity issue makes sense in theory. But in reality, the B1G used the BTN principally as an excuse (a PR tool). Schools wanted admissions to this club, and the B1G used expansion to financially reward legacy members for expanding the conference. What the B1G did was more like the B12's partial payments to TCU and West Virginia. They wanted new members to pay for the privileges of joining the conference. Which is very different than how the ACC, PAC or SEC approached expansion.

Conference distributions to new members varied wildly in the B1G. Rutgers and Maryland almost immediately enabled many new high-end subscribers into the BTN footprint. Valuation of the BTN decreased as the media model changed. All these issues can't be swept under-the-rug as unintended windfalls to legacy members...nor unexpected costs to new members. Not arguing that the B1G and B12 have the wrong financial model for expansion, but it is different than other P5 conferences.

The Pac 12 and Big 12 approached it similarly. CU and Utah got lower payouts. CU worked a better deal than Utah. Not sure how Pitt and SU and Louisville's deals worked. A&M and Missouri got virtually full shares from the start in the SEC.

TCU and WVU ended up getting about a $25-$30 million reduction from the payout for the continuing schools. Theirs was a 50% distribution, 67%, 75%, 83%, 85%, to 100% deal over 6 years (not certain on the 83 & 85%, but it was similar to that). Nebraska, Maryland and Rutgers are paying close to $100 million.

Seems like the SEC has been easily the best conference in terms of new entry. New schools are apparently treated like full colleagues from more or less day one.

Easier said than done, but, Rutgers needs to improve their performance in both major sports. Once they do that the fans will come. A few years ago when the FB team had it's run the Rutgers shirts all came out of the closet in and around NYC. They have since been put back in. Let's be honest, other than the past couple of years, the BB program has been nothing to write home about. I believe they never had a winning conference season record in the BE, had maybe 1 in the B10 and even in the A10 the winning seasons were sparse. Given their history in FB, played in the 1st college game over 150 years ago, one would expect their program to be more storied. Wealthy state, FB at high school level pretty good , at least by Northeast standards. Why they can't get it together is a mystery to me.

(01-20-2022 03:50 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-20-2022 03:42 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-20-2022 02:23 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(01-20-2022 01:31 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-20-2022 01:08 PM)bullet Wrote:  Yes. Rutgers gets the lowest conference distributions in the P5. Maryland is the 2nd lowest. Prior to the Big 10 adding Rutgers and Maryland, Nebraska was the lowest. Nebraska got a really bad deal from the Big 10, much worse than the deals Colorado, Utah, WVU, TCU, Missouri, Texas A&M, Pitt and Syracuse got. At one point I calculated Nebraska was $50 million behind Iowa St. in conference distributions since they left the Big 12. For example, in 2015-16 Nebraska got about $22 million from the Big 10. The Pac 12 was the bottom conference in distributions that year with $28.7 million. Big 12 was $30.4 million.

However, Rutgers got a big raise from the AAC level of distributions. It did still leave them well behind every other P5. I don't know what they got in 2015-16, but 2014-15, it was
Full Big 10 members 32.0
Maryland 24.5
Nebraska 18.7
Rutgers 10.0
ACC 19.2
Pac approx. 20
SEC 20.9
Big 12 21.2

One thing to take into account is that the Big Ten wasn't just reducing the new members' shares for sake of reducing them, but rather the Big Ten was unique in that it actually had (and still has) an equity stake in the BTN that the other leagues didn't have. (The Pac-12 has their network now, but it didn't exist when the CU and Utah were invited. The ACC and SEC Networks are pure third party rights deals without any equity.) The idea behind the reduced payouts was that the new members were essentially earning more equity in the BTN with each passing year.

Ehh?

The BTN equity issue makes sense in theory. But in reality, the B1G used the BTN principally as an excuse (a PR tool). Schools wanted admissions to this club, and the B1G used expansion to financially reward legacy members for expanding the conference. What the B1G did was more like the B12's partial payments to TCU and West Virginia. They wanted new members to pay for the privileges of joining the conference. Which is very different than how the ACC, PAC or SEC approached expansion.

Conference distributions to new members varied wildly in the B1G. Rutgers and Maryland almost immediately enabled many new high-end subscribers into the BTN footprint. Valuation of the BTN decreased as the media model changed. All these issues can't be swept under-the-rug as unintended windfalls to legacy members...nor unexpected costs to new members. Not arguing that the B1G and B12 have the wrong financial model for expansion, but it is different than other P5 conferences.

The Pac 12 and Big 12 approached it similarly. CU and Utah got lower payouts. CU worked a better deal than Utah. Not sure how Pitt and SU and Louisville's deals worked. A&M and Missouri got virtually full shares from the start in the SEC.

TCU and WVU ended up getting about a $25-$30 million reduction from the payout for the continuing schools. Theirs was a 50% distribution, 67%, 75%, 83%, 85%, to 100% deal over 6 years (not certain on the 83 & 85%, but it was similar to that). Nebraska, Maryland and Rutgers are paying close to $100 million.

Seems like the SEC has been easily the best conference in terms of new entry. New schools are apparently treated like full colleagues from more or less day one.

Yeah, the SEC doesn't require you to get jumped in.

(01-20-2022 06:02 PM)Porcine Wrote:  

(01-20-2022 03:50 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-20-2022 03:42 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-20-2022 02:23 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(01-20-2022 01:31 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  One thing to take into account is that the Big Ten wasn't just reducing the new members' shares for sake of reducing them, but rather the Big Ten was unique in that it actually had (and still has) an equity stake in the BTN that the other leagues didn't have. (The Pac-12 has their network now, but it didn't exist when the CU and Utah were invited. The ACC and SEC Networks are pure third party rights deals without any equity.) The idea behind the reduced payouts was that the new members were essentially earning more equity in the BTN with each passing year.

Ehh?

The BTN equity issue makes sense in theory. But in reality, the B1G used the BTN principally as an excuse (a PR tool). Schools wanted admissions to this club, and the B1G used expansion to financially reward legacy members for expanding the conference. What the B1G did was more like the B12's partial payments to TCU and West Virginia. They wanted new members to pay for the privileges of joining the conference. Which is very different than how the ACC, PAC or SEC approached expansion.

Conference distributions to new members varied wildly in the B1G. Rutgers and Maryland almost immediately enabled many new high-end subscribers into the BTN footprint. Valuation of the BTN decreased as the media model changed. All these issues can't be swept under-the-rug as unintended windfalls to legacy members...nor unexpected costs to new members. Not arguing that the B1G and B12 have the wrong financial model for expansion, but it is different than other P5 conferences.

The Pac 12 and Big 12 approached it similarly. CU and Utah got lower payouts. CU worked a better deal than Utah. Not sure how Pitt and SU and Louisville's deals worked. A&M and Missouri got virtually full shares from the start in the SEC.

TCU and WVU ended up getting about a $25-$30 million reduction from the payout for the continuing schools. Theirs was a 50% distribution, 67%, 75%, 83%, 85%, to 100% deal over 6 years (not certain on the 83 & 85%, but it was similar to that). Nebraska, Maryland and Rutgers are paying close to $100 million.

Seems like the SEC has been easily the best conference in terms of new entry. New schools are apparently treated like full colleagues from more or less day one.

Yeah, the SEC doesn't require you to get jumped in.

If you go by demographics, the SEC also gained entering Texas (Texas A&M) as Texas A&M did entering the SEC. You can say the Big Ten gained entering the DC and NY markets for Maryland and Rutgers but Penn State did give them some presence in the Northeast and Texas A&M was a much bigger football program than either Maryland or Rutgers was. Also, the Big Ten at the time had plenty of demographics in their favor (in addition to Pennsylvania, Illinois, Ohio, and Michigan are populous states) while the SEC didn't. The Big Ten was able to handcuff Rutgers because Rutgers only option was staying in the Big East/AAC. Maryland got a little better deal from the Big Ten than Rutgers coming from the ACC but the fact that they were in bad financial shape helped the Big Ten's hand.

If the SEC made the same demands on Texas A&M as the Big Ten on Rutgers, Maryland, and Nebraska, would Texas A&M still be in the Big 12 today? Texas A&M might have wanted to get away from Texas but everything is dollars and cents. A&M wouldn't have taken a pay cut to get away from UT. Remember the SEC back then was still working on the cheap skate SEC on CBS contract, not their future lucrative ESPN contract. When the SEC wasn't in Texas, the SEC might have needed Texas (A&M) as much as A&M needed the SEC. I certainly respect the SEC more now that they are in Texas (I will even more after UT and OU join). That was never the case for the Big Ten and Nebraska, Maryland, and Rutgers or the Pac-12 and Colorado/Utah so those conferences were able to take advantage. I'm not saying the Big Ten and Pac 12 didn't gain demographically with their adds but the SEC add expanded their population base by adding Texas A&M way more than the Big Ten and Pac 12 did. Imagine an SEC without Texas A&M (or Texas) and the Big 12 with those schools. The SEC still has all their national championships but no footprint in Texas while the Big 12 still owns the state of Texas.

Could the SEC have gotten Missouri with partial payouts at first? Probably. If word gets out that you gave A&M the full package and Missouri gets a lesser deal, Missouri could then be insulted and say no. Missouri accepted an SEC invite in 2011, Maryland and Rutgers were added to the Big Ten in 2012. Maybe Missouri "holds out" for the Big Ten had the SEC "insulted" them with a partial offer. Would the SEC have gone to West Virginia or Louisville or someone else that would have taken a partial offer? The Big Ten was able to give Rutgers a lesser deal because Rutgers had less bargaining power than Maryland did. We know A&M is more valuable than Missouri but Mizzou is going to say we're from the same conference, shouldn't we get the same deal? Rutgers can't say that to Maryland.

Oh by the way, do you think the SEC (or the Big Ten for that matter) could go to Texas (or Oklahoma) and say come join our conference but we're only going to give you a partial payment for the first X amount of years? Bevo would have hung up the phone before the sentence was finished.

(01-20-2022 05:53 PM)gosports1 Wrote:  Easier said than done, but, Rutgers needs to improve their performance in both major sports. Once they do that the fans will come. A few years ago when the FB team had it's run the Rutgers shirts all came out of the closet in and around NYC. They have since been put back in. Let's be honest, other than the past couple of years, the BB program has been nothing to write home about. I believe they never had a winning conference season record in the BE, had maybe 1 in the B10 and even in the A10 the winning seasons were sparse. Given their history in FB, played in the 1st college game over 150 years ago, one would expect their program to be more storied. Wealthy state, FB at high school level pretty good , at least by Northeast standards. Why they can't get it together is a mystery to me.

I don't remember seeing any of that. Rutgers is a non-interest here, even in NJ. Sure, you'll see the R logo in southern NJ but it's only to show pride that their kid didn't go to Rowan, Montclair State, etc. The athletic brand sucks along with questionable academics.

It's definitely one of the worst P5 realignment moves ever. I wish they took Mizzou, Kansas, Oklahoma instead of College of NJ and Maryland.

(01-21-2022 07:15 AM)schmolik Wrote:  

(01-20-2022 06:02 PM)Porcine Wrote:  

(01-20-2022 03:50 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-20-2022 03:42 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-20-2022 02:23 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  Ehh?

The BTN equity issue makes sense in theory. But in reality, the B1G used the BTN principally as an excuse (a PR tool). Schools wanted admissions to this club, and the B1G used expansion to financially reward legacy members for expanding the conference. What the B1G did was more like the B12's partial payments to TCU and West Virginia. They wanted new members to pay for the privileges of joining the conference. Which is very different than how the ACC, PAC or SEC approached expansion.

Conference distributions to new members varied wildly in the B1G. Rutgers and Maryland almost immediately enabled many new high-end subscribers into the BTN footprint. Valuation of the BTN decreased as the media model changed. All these issues can't be swept under-the-rug as unintended windfalls to legacy members...nor unexpected costs to new members. Not arguing that the B1G and B12 have the wrong financial model for expansion, but it is different than other P5 conferences.

The Pac 12 and Big 12 approached it similarly. CU and Utah got lower payouts. CU worked a better deal than Utah. Not sure how Pitt and SU and Louisville's deals worked. A&M and Missouri got virtually full shares from the start in the SEC.

TCU and WVU ended up getting about a $25-$30 million reduction from the payout for the continuing schools. Theirs was a 50% distribution, 67%, 75%, 83%, 85%, to 100% deal over 6 years (not certain on the 83 & 85%, but it was similar to that). Nebraska, Maryland and Rutgers are paying close to $100 million.

Seems like the SEC has been easily the best conference in terms of new entry. New schools are apparently treated like full colleagues from more or less day one.

Yeah, the SEC doesn't require you to get jumped in.

If you go by demographics, the SEC also gained entering Texas (Texas A&M) as Texas A&M did entering the SEC. You can say the Big Ten gained entering the DC and NY markets for Maryland and Rutgers but Penn State did give them some presence in the Northeast and Texas A&M was a much bigger football program than either Maryland or Rutgers was. Also, the Big Ten at the time had plenty of demographics in their favor (in addition to Pennsylvania, Illinois, Ohio, and Michigan are populous states) while the SEC didn't. The Big Ten was able to handcuff Rutgers because Rutgers only option was staying in the Big East/AAC. Maryland got a little better deal from the Big Ten than Rutgers coming from the ACC but the fact that they were in bad financial shape helped the Big Ten's hand.

If the SEC made the same demands on Texas A&M as the Big Ten on Rutgers, Maryland, and Nebraska, would Texas A&M still be in the Big 12 today? Texas A&M might have wanted to get away from Texas but everything is dollars and cents. A&M wouldn't have taken a pay cut to get away from UT. Remember the SEC back then was still working on the cheap skate SEC on CBS contract, not their future lucrative ESPN contract. When the SEC wasn't in Texas, the SEC might have needed Texas (A&M) as much as A&M needed the SEC. I certainly respect the SEC more now that they are in Texas (I will even more after UT and OU join). That was never the case for the Big Ten and Nebraska, Maryland, and Rutgers or the Pac-12 and Colorado/Utah so those conferences were able to take advantage. I'm not saying the Big Ten and Pac 12 didn't gain demographically with their adds but the SEC add expanded their population base by adding Texas A&M way more than the Big Ten and Pac 12 did. Imagine an SEC without Texas A&M (or Texas) and the Big 12 with those schools. The SEC still has all their national championships but no footprint in Texas while the Big 12 still owns the state of Texas.

Could the SEC have gotten Missouri with partial payouts at first? Probably. If word gets out that you gave A&M the full package and Missouri gets a lesser deal, Missouri could then be insulted and say no. Missouri accepted an SEC invite in 2011, Maryland and Rutgers were added to the Big Ten in 2012. Maybe Missouri "holds out" for the Big Ten had the SEC "insulted" them with a partial offer. Would the SEC have gone to West Virginia or Louisville or someone else that would have taken a partial offer? The Big Ten was able to give Rutgers a lesser deal because Rutgers had less bargaining power than Maryland did. We know A&M is more valuable than Missouri but Mizzou is going to say we're from the same conference, shouldn't we get the same deal? Rutgers can't say that to Maryland.

Oh by the way, do you think the SEC (or the Big Ten for that matter) could go to Texas (or Oklahoma) and say come join our conference but we're only going to give you a partial payment for the first X amount of years? Bevo would have hung up the phone before the sentence was finished.

This is a well-reasoned post, but you left out a couple of important aspects. The SEC has always treated an added school as a full member from day 1, and until the COVID loans never had an exit fee. And as far as media contracts and what we would call T1 and T2 rights it has been equal shares. When the SECN was formed T3 rights became shared as well.

Because of that policy, and this is the aspect, which is often missed in many of these discussions, the SEC won't consider a school with which other conferences would make a lesser deal. This is really why West Virginia was tabled twice and why any school which isn't initially accretive is passed over.

Thankfully accretion is a broad concept when considered in total. It includes many facets among which are population, viewership, facilities standards and capacities, of course revenue generation and liquidity, and academics. In 1991-2 these factors were, in a long view, inclusive of reach. Arkansas was seen as a bridge to Texas, which has now paid dividends. South Carolina was a bridge to North Carolina. That bridge may yet pay dividends. We took schools which the schools we are really after might like to have on schedules. I get Missouri marketwise, but they were not a bridge per se, unless of course we one day take Kansas. Missouri is more of a footprint cornerstone, and they share history with Oklahoma.