Let's get a few particulars out of the way.

1. This model assumes Kansas and West Virginia are added to make things an even 32.

2. This model assumes Notre Dame decides to partner elsewhere.

3. A straight merger of both conferences under the same group with the same branding.

-Financial model:

I suggest 3 tiers of revenue distribution. The tiers are performance based and rely on rolling 4 year cycles of performance. Your placement is based on cumulative results over that time period with special consideration given towards conference titles and non-conference success(you make the league look good and we reward you for it). The rolling time periods not only mean you are not locked into a certain revenue tier, but there is ample opportunity through program building to have upward mobility.

Each of these cycles are sport specific. Football has their own distribution model and basketball has theirs. Each sport has their own actually so that the distributions can be based on your desire to compete in any given sport rather than rewarding an entire athletic department purely for the success of the football team or basketball team.

Tiers for football(an example) - Top 12 programs get the highest distribution, next 10 programs get a reduced distribution, last 10 programs get the lowest distribution. This would be the same setup for any sport with universal participation. You can monkey with these numbers in cases where a smaller number of participants exist...gymnastics for example.

Thoughts?

(01-23-2023 12:24 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Let's get a few particulars out of the way.

1. This model assumes Kansas and West Virginia are added to make things an even 32.

2. This model assumes Notre Dame decides to partner elsewhere.

3. A straight merger of both conferences under the same group with the same branding.

-Financial model:

I suggest 3 tiers of revenue distribution. The tiers are performance based and rely on rolling 4 year cycles of performance. Your placement is based on cumulative results over that time period with special consideration given towards conference titles and non-conference success(you make the league look good and we reward you for it). The rolling time periods not only mean you are not locked into a certain revenue tier, but there is ample opportunity through program building to have upward mobility.

Each of these cycles are sport specific. Football has their own distribution model and basketball has theirs. Each sport has their own actually so that the distributions can be based on your desire to compete in any given sport rather than rewarding an entire athletic department purely for the success of the football team or basketball team.

Tiers for football(an example) - Top 12 programs get the highest distribution, next 10 programs get a reduced distribution, last 10 programs get the lowest distribution. This would be the same setup for any sport with universal participation. You can monkey with these numbers in cases where a smaller number of participants exist...gymnastics for example.

Thoughts?

I like your 3 tier pay system based upon performance, and I like the performances which add value being games against outside competition.

What I'm not sure would be easy to establish is lower pay upon current members of the SEC who would balk at the concept.

It is why I suggested assimilating new members at their current valuation as a member of the SEC and letting them build value.

That said I can see a pathway to an eventual tiered system like the one you present, especially when the top brands and top producers start to ask for consideration.