I can always tell when an uniformed person begins making **** up. That's when the fake hypotheticals start.
Before I even get to the "guaranteed $100M" silliness, I'll just point out that
@Rellyrell says the number is $80M.
And as for your "15% chance" and "75% chance" and "10% chance" nonsense, I'm just going to laugh. And marvel at how that kind of fake-logical argument bamboozles some people on the board.
Royalties are NOT "only better if they result in more money". There are a lot of elements to a royalty arrangement. And money is just money. You can pick ANY guaranteed number, and you will either exceed it or not exceed it. There is never a "75% chance that you hit the number right on the head".
It doesn't matter if a royalty-heavy deal resulted in 78.8 million or 80.2 million compared to the 80 million guarantee. It just doesn't matter.
What is truly illuminating here is that Beta Blake felt that the 80 million guarantee was SOOOOOOOO much better than he would have earned under the Nike royalties arrangement. And THAT is disturbing. Because to judge the numbers given BY NIKE AND ADIDAS to many other schools within a few years of the Miami deal in 2015, the merch business is good. **** GOOD. Good enough to be forking out MUCH more money than what UM is getting.
So instead of using your bullcrap "15%/75%/10%" model, look at it the way businessmen actually look at it. If you have an $80M 12 year deal on the table (which is just south of $7M per year), then you can establish a range. If you think you could have a variance of $1M per year (which is plus/minus less than 15%). Now, I'm not trying to crap on a million dollars, but our overall revenue is over $130 million. But what the $1M range does is to say, could we live with a ROYALTY range between 58 million over 12 years and 92 million over 12 years. Because if you do not think the Royalty model can bring you even $58 million, then you are clearly better with the "guarantee". And if you think you can make more than $92 million on royalties, then you clearly reject the guarantee.
And my point about THAT analysis (which is far superior to your percentages nonsense) is that nobody can predict the number with perfect specificity. But if you come up a bit short or a bit over, it's not a big deal.
But when you compare the numbers that
@Rellyrell has given, it is obvious that even adidas is capable of paying more than 10M per year for these deals, let alone what Nike was paying. And even if UM got a "raise" because of Louisville, it just makes it OBVIOUS that signing a long-term "guarantee" deal is stupid. Painfully stupid.
On top of the obvious point. If you do a royalty deal, and the price of merch goes up over 12 years, you make more and more money AS A FUNCTION OF MATH. Not because you got a raise. Simply because you get a percentage of every dollar of merch sold.
Finally, I'm just going to leave you with this. You are fighting so many people that you can't even remember who said what, or what they said. I have NEVER said royalty arrangements are ALWAYS better than a guarantee. I've said that AS IT RELATES TO MIAMI, which is a brand (particularly with the U logo) that has cachet and recognizability beyond our current W-L record. I've said that royalties are better FOR THE UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI. Nothing more, nothing less. And as for adidas exiting contracts or not, that is an issue that
@Rellyrell discusses. I've simply pointed out that the adidas roster of universities is uninspiring. And recruits know that too.
Anyhow, enjoy your fever delusion that there would ever be a 75% chance that a 12-year contractual guarantee would turn out to be the EXACT SAME NUMBER as you would have had under a royalty arrangement.
Hilarious.