MEGA Conference Realignment and lawsuits Megathread: Stories, Tales, Lies, and Exaggerations

[Tony4Canes]

Interesting

 

[grover]

Wellllll...

The school that was complaining the most about unequal revenue distribution in the Big East was...Miami...because in the "lean years" we made so little money that we incurred massive operating deficits.

I realize that the "Michigan is better than Northwestern" crowd has probably never worked for an entity in the sports industry. But I have. And I can tell you one simple thing, you need REVENUE CERTAINTY. Sure, it's awesome when you can EXCEED expectations (such as what Miami accomplished with the CFP championship game run), but you need absolute revenue certainty in a number of areas, including all your "contractual" arrangements (sponsorships, etc.).

It wasn't about the "top tier", because the top tier of the Big East was based solely upon year-to-year success. Thus, while Miami was arguably one of the "top tier" teams of the Big East, our payouts were feast-and-famine. Thus, a "lesser" program like Boston College (or God forbid, St. Johns) might have made more money than Miami in any given year simply by succeeding at football or basketball while Miami was on probation.

So you can crap on the "lower tier" schools all you'd like, but the reality is not whether you are "lower tier", but whether the lowest payouts are enough to pay the bills and keep the lights on.

Thus, when Miami wanted to explore ways to improve payouts in the Big East, many other schools (especially the basketball-only schools) mischaracterized our efforts out of jealousy, knowing full well there was no way to have EQUAL distributions in a league in which some schools WERE basketball-only schools.

There's no way in **** the Big 10 will ever boot Northwestern or Purdue. Now, Rutgers and Maryland are different, but I doubt that will happen either. And the "value" of Northwestern and Purdue is about much more than their football records.

There's got to be a compromise though, no? If I were Taint or Michigan, I'd be livid that I subsidized Indiana's rise to the top. I understand the entire conference needs to be sustainable. But I do think the largest earners (e.g., the ones with the largest television audiences) should be compensated more.

 

[caneingville]

Even in the "lean years" of 1995 - 1999, Miami football finished each season as 1st or 2nd in the BE except for 1997. Even basketball finished in the top 4 of the BE in the last 3 of those years. Not sure how there was much famine on the field. If Miami wasn't getting paid with those results, they were right to look elsewhere.

You're right, a key goal for any business entity is revenue certainty. It isn't just in the sports industry. Just try and get a decent loan from a bank or sell shares of ownership if you can't show revenue stability. It's part of the reason there are conferences in the first place - share the risk, realize some schools will be up others will be down, and in other years it flip flops.

The issue all of college football is facing right now is this isn't the college football of even 20 years ago, let alone the college football of the early 20th century. As such, money is more important and the patience to allow the bottom feeders to take as much as everyone else in the conference, but not pay into their programs to be competitive is dwindling. Patience will really disappear if it affects TV negotiations. B1G TV numbers were disappointing this year. Could be a one-off situation, if not, negotiations could be interesting.

Interesting that Big 10 TV numbers were disappointing this past year. I hate how much of a monopoly the mothership has.

 

[TheOriginalCane]

Dude - why do you attack people who are trying to have an legitimate conversation with you on a message board?

I didn't attack you and didn't say that you were wrong. I should have said they were fully vested instead of getting the same revenue in my previous post, but the point of my is still valid... MD and Rutgers aren't getting the same payout not b/c they aren't vested, but rather because they are repaying a loan which I don't think was necessarily obvious to everyone.

I am not suggesting you tried to mislead anyone, but I am willing to bet a lot - if not most - people who read your post would interpret it to mean the they still aren't vested.

And yes, when the new media deal was signed, to the surprise of Maryland and Rutgers, the Big10 decided they would withhold a portion of the new expected payouts that MD and Rutgers were expecting to receive in order to accelerate the repayment of the advances... but I think the context of why that happened is important.

It's all good. It's just a pet peeve of mine when anyone conveys or implies that "loan proceeds" are similar to revenue. If you go back in this thread, you can see where I am also attacking the "loans from private equity" as a method to get more cash to ACC member schools.

You are correct, Rutgers and Maryland are now fully vested in the Big 10. I'm not sure exactly what that means on the non-monetary side, maybe it's full voting rights or veto privileges. I did not mean to say that the schools are not fully vested, only that the PROMISE of a full share can be an illusory promise where the Big 10 is concerned.

And the reason for my commentary was a direct follow-on to this concept that the Big 10 should have multi-tier treatment of certain "lesser" schools, which the Big 10 has effectively been doing for over a decade, at least when it comes to Rutgers and Maryland.

Having said all of that, I think we all strive to communicate our points as effectively as we can. It may be hard to pick up from written posts, but I am almost always in sarcasm-mode, not attack-mode. I grew up with 3 brothers, I'm used to a rugged form of debate with a lot of jokes and pokes, so I can easily apologize when I come off harsher than intended.

 

[TheOriginalCane]

Even in the "lean years" of 1995 - 1999, Miami football finished each season as 1st or 2nd in the BE except for 1997. Even basketball finished in the top 4 of the BE in the last 3 of those years. Not sure how there was much famine on the field. If Miami wasn't getting paid with those results, they were right to look elsewhere.

You're missing the point (and the reality) of what happened in those years. Miami didn't get paid more for finishing second. Because the TV contract was so bad, we got paid the most for BOWL GAMES. And what happened in 1995, when Miami finished tied-for-first in the Big East? Oh yeah, we took a voluntary bowl ban. 1996: ****** bowl (thanks, East Carolina). 1997: no bowl. 1998: ****** bowl. 1999: ****** bowl (thanks, East Carolina). And don't give me **** for calling those bowl games ******, the reality is that for the fifteen preceding seasons, we tended to play in New Year's Day bowl games, which paid a lot more.

As for basketball, your post-season NCAA Tournament pay is determined by "units", not "where you finish in your conference". In those three years, Miami (a) lost in the first round of the Tournament, (b) lost in the second round of the Tournament, (c) made the Sweet 16 exactly once, and (d) never advanced past the Sweet 16.

So while you can try to brag about how vaguely "good" Miami was during that time period, it didn't translate into, you know, ACTUAL MONEY. So, NO, three second-tier Florida-area bowl games and one Sweet Sixteen game in five years didn't make Miami rich.

That's just reality. And the reason for Foote/Shalala asking for the Big East to do more to boost revenue. Which was ignored and/or laughed at.

 

[TheOriginalCane]

There's got to be a compromise though, no? If I were Taint or Michigan, I'd be livid that I subsidized Indiana's rise to the top. I understand the entire conference needs to be sustainable. But I do think the largest earners (e.g., the ones with the largest television audiences) should be compensated more.

I hear what you are saying. And maybe this new era of huge TV rights is creating a new sense of being jealous over everyone else's money.

But the reason why conferences adopted the all-for-one/one-for-all approach was to create security and certainty.

And I've said this for decades in relation to how MLB acts like the Yankees and Dodgers deserve sooooo much more money: why don't we see how much interest there is in a 2-team league? Like it or not, a league derives legitimacy and respect for "large market" teams like NY and LA, at least in part, because they play everyone else in the league, even the poor-o's like Kansas City and Pittsburgh.

Michigan and Taint NEED the Northwesterns and Purdues of the world. Alabama and Georgia NEED the Vanderbilts and Mississippi States of the world. I realize that not everyone contributes exactly equal value. But the entire enterprise would suffer if you cut out the "least popular" teams. And, yes, I realize that in today's cutthroat world, you could replace Northwestern and Purdue and Vanderbilt and Mississippi State with teams like Miami. But that is a very recent development, and I don't think conferences are going to kick out charter members just to make a few dollars more.

Rutgers and Maryland should be more scared, though. But not very scared.

 

[Hold My Beer]

Chicago is big enough for both (and add ND as well if you like). Plenty of money and power here that would make sure Northwestern isn't jettisoned. Literally spending just under $1 billion to renovate their stadium.

You can literally stay in Chicago and jump on Metra or the EL to go to the game. Can't do that with Champaign. Does Northwestern generate a ton of football TV revenue? Probably not. But will the other schools be willing to subsidize for academics, and the ability to raise funds and engage with their alumni in Chicago. Absolutely.

Just my opinion of course.

Agree mi amigo.

Every school needs to bring something to the table, but it doesn't have to be the same thing(s).

There's not a Big Ten or SEC president who doesn't value what prestigious institutions like Northwestern, Stanford, Duke and Vanderbilt provide a conference — whether or not their smaller football stadiums are anywhere near filled or not

 

[cookies]

Agree mi amigo.

Every school needs to bring something to the table, but it doesn't have to be the same thing(s).

There's not a Big Ten or SEC president who doesn't value what prestigious institutions like Northwestern, Stanford, Duke and Vanderbilt provide a conference — whether or not their smaller football stadiums are anywhere near filled or not

Agree with the spirit of both of your comments; only minor gripe is the B1G presidents literally did not value Stanford & Berkeley enough which is why they are in the ACC.

Moreover, to touch upon how football isn’t the end all be all, Washington and Oregon were the most recent PAC12 teams to make the playoffs which helped their delayed insertion into the B1G; yet, that football success wasn’t enough for them to be treated as an equal partner in terms of payout like USC + UCLA.

 

[Hold My Beer]

In the case of the PAC 12, the teams ended up leaving the conference en masse relatively quickly. It could be the conference kicking out the weaklings in the B1G if it benefits those individual schools remaining.

All but two schools leaving the Pac-12 for additional money and a more secure setting is one thing. Just keep your mouths shut, provide an agreed-upon settlement for the left-behinds in Pullman and Corvallis and keep it moving.

Kicking out the likes of Maryland and Rutgers doesn't do much for anybody other than us fans on the internet caught up with who should or shouldn't be at the Big Boys Table. University presidents and regents have no desire to deal with drawn-out and expensive lawsuits and the inevitable intrusion from politicians.

If getting away from the weaker programs was a legitimate priority, than the Super League wouldn't be dead in the water like it is right now

 

[cookies]

Ive talked to some Berkeley and SMU fans online and they are just so grateful the ACC took them in instead of being on the outside looking in lol. They were terrified of almost ending up in no man’s land.