(04-20-2018 12:58 PM)johnbragg Wrote: (04-20-2018 11:34 AM)JRsec Wrote: Quote:Ask this question in 5-10 years when SAban is making $30M a year to put Wisconsin in the national title game and Calipari is making $20M a year to take Rutgers to the Final Four.
5 to 10 years from now Saban will be 71-76 by your timeline. He'll retire when he leaves Alabama and if he wants a check he'll remain and be the A.D..
The Big 10 isn't going to hire away the SEC's coaches. At the end of the day we still earn more and will pay more. TV money is truly only 1/4 to 1/5th of our revenue total.
And as far as Calipari is concerned there are many at Kentucky who would say, "Take Calipari,.....please?"
I believe you're missing the point. Yes, Saban and Calipari will get older, but there will be top coaches after them. *If* the Big 10 has and maintains a revenue gap with the SEC, *then* you'll see the mid-tier of the Big 10 use that money to poach top SEC coaches to compete with the top of the Big 10.
If the gap is trivial, nonexistent or negative, then the Big Ten won't poach coaches. I was responding to "The big bank account doesn't make-up for the failure to perform on the field or court." The point is, the big bank account can buy the people who produce results on the field or on the court.
John, you are the one missing the point. The Big 10, even with its big "TV" revenue boost which starts next year, will still on average earn 10 million dollars less than the average SEC school.
I agree that if the total revenue gap is within 5 million to 7 million it won't make much difference. We are talking about our top programs earning in ranges of 150 to 200 million per year in gross total revenue (revenue from all sources of which TV is only 1 and only accounts for 20% to 25% of the total for most P5 schools). Statistically speaking 5 to 7 million really doesn't register when your revenue totals are that large.
What you are suggesting will help the mid tier of the Big 10, but the mid tier of the Big 10 has been significantly behind the SEC because Ohio State and Michigan's numbers skew the Big 10 totals more than Alabama and Texas A&M's totals skew the numbers of the SEC.
If you will take a trip to the SEC board here and look at the pinned posts you will see where I've broken out the numbers for all of the P5 schools and have done so by conference. I think you will see what I'm talking about if you do.
Last year the SEC's payout for TV revenue was 40.9 million. But, it was the year that the Sugar Bowl was affected by the CFP rotation of bowls. So we missed out on 3 million per school in payouts. Last year the Big 10 paid out 38.5 million. Next year you will pay out 51.1 to full members. Next year the SEC will have their 3 million back from the Sugar Bowl and we have built in back-loaded escalators in our contract so we'll get a bump of about 2 million on top of that. So we'll be sitting at 46 million when the Big 10 is at 51.1 and that is hardly enough for the Big 10 to catch up in total revenue and statistically the SEC averages 127.9 million in total revenue per conference school so 5 million in TV revenue is not even 4% of an overall difference.
The Big 10 has improved and it is in large part due to coaching hires. All of your schools make enough now to hire good coaches. Your conference was just late to the game of paying enough to attract good coaches. Ohio State ruffled some feathers in the Big 10 when they paid Urban what they did. Since then others are following suit. But it is because Urban brought OSU a championship.
My point is that for all of Wilner's bluster in that article he intentionally cropped information he knew to be true in order to play to his market to make a point. USA Today which was cited plays to the Northeast. This kind of journalism is now the norm. Therefore, there is no massive 10 million dollar difference unless you game the numbers to create one. So he compares next year's numbers for the Big 10 to this year's numbers for the SEC, fails to mention the -3 million due to the Sugar Bowl rotation for this past year, and doesn't mention the standard escalators that all conferences have back-loaded into their contracts when they aren't in the first year of a contract like the Big 10 will be next year.
If you compare this year to this year the Big 10 is 2.5 million behind in TV revenue. If you compare next year to next year the Big 10 will be up by 5 million not factoring in the Big 10's 2% revenue loss in Comcast or the SEC's entry into the Northeast via Altice.
He cites the Big 10's coming 2023 contract renewal. That's meaningless too. The PAC / Big 12 / and SEC for T1 will all be renewing about the same time and the ACC which wont be has a built in renegotiation clause should they add schools (as does the SEC).
So no matter how people want to spin these things nobody's contracts are set in stone as all of them have built in wiggle room clauses to keep them from being trapped (except the SEC's deal with CBS which comes up for renewal in 2024).
These kinds of articles come out every year after the basketball tourney to sell newspapers. On the internet they appear to drive hits.
So the impact on the Big 10's ability to steal coaches from elsewhere is nil. The Big 10 already has enough to be competitive in coaching hires. There is no change in that reality because of the TV revenue which isn't even a 4% difference between our schools.
So what I'm telling you is that we are already the wealthiest two conferences and there isn't enough difference between us, and won't be moving forward, to affect our ability to hire who we want to hire. And of all of the revenue sources the TV revenue will likely never be the deciding factor in an inequity. You have the larger market by a skosh, and we have the higher % of the the total population who actually watches the games. So SEC schools and Big 10 schools that desire to compete for the best coaches will statistically be on equal footing in spite of any TV revenue difference one way or the other. It's a click bait title and article for the silly season.