I know we’ve all seen this stuff talked about before but there’s some money being thrown around with this.
I know we’ve all seen this stuff talked about before but there’s some money being thrown around with this.
According to the proposal, school-by-school distributions would skyrocket, cash that presumably would be used to help sustain Olympic sports — something that administrators contend is threatened by the advent of revenue sharing. However, the revenues will be allotted unequally. Project Rudy separates the 70 programs into three tiers.
- Tier 1: the top 16 schools earn per-school revenue projections from $130 million in Year 4, escalating to $250 million in Year 12 (double the SEC and Big Ten’s current distribution rate).
- Tier 2: the next 22 schools earn revenue of $60-$110 million (similar to the SEC and Big Ten current rates).
- Tier 3: the last 32 schools earn projections of $30-$60 million (similar to the Big 12 and ACC rates).
The model offers a variety of ways to determine how to tier schools: the previous season’s results, perhaps, or an aggregate of results over a stretch of seasons. The model also features a relegation and promotion system to pave a way for schools to move up and down the tiers. However, one proposed model suggests having eight “permanent” members of Tier 1, a move presumably to placate the biggest brands in the sport.
Venture capital will take care of that in short order.We’d at least make the cut for a top 70 league. I think you really hurt long-term financial health of the sport if you have anything smaller
Oh, I think they’ll definitely try to maximize revenue, and it’ll be more expensive to access the gamesVenture capital will take care of that in short order.
The top 16 schools can't continue to compete without the next 22 and tier 2's would never agree to taking that much less than tier 1 as a matter of course. Also, the idea of up to 1/2 of the members of tier 1 being given permanent status would be a non starter. I appreciate their attempt to find a solution to what some consider to be a problem, but this isn't it.I'm listening.
We gotta have our **** together ASAP if we are going to get into, compete, and stay in that middle pack.
So what would stop Tier 1 from separating themselves? This is a dumb idea. No league survives with equal sharing.
Permanent tier 1 status should be tossed ideologically. But you also need those top 8 or so to buy in and bail on status quo. They'll try to throw their weight around. But as you said, the top needs mids and lowers to provide bulk to the system or none of this works. They will (or should) throw their collective weight around.The top 16 schools can't continue to compete without the next 22 and tier 2's would never agree to taking that much less than tier 1 as a matter of course. Also, the idea of up to 1/2 of the members of tier 1 being given permanent status would be a non starter. I appreciate their attempt to find a solution to what some consider to be a problem, but this isn't it.
I can’t imagine anyone being ok with a permanent top 8. Teams 9-16ish would riot. Also the gap between tier 1 and tier 2 is way too big for what will be a somewhat subjective decision (using data). But unequal rev sharing is inevitable.Permanent tier 1 status should be tossed ideologically. But you also need those top 8 or so to buy in and bail on status quo. They'll try to throw their weight around. But as you said, the top needs mids and lowers to provide bulk to the system or none of this works. They will (or should) throw their collective weight around.
So...it'll be a giant cluster. The dollars suggested here will make it a very serious attempt though. That's too much money for the system top down not to give it a look.
From an ego perspective this is spot on. The kicker though is if you are mid tier SEC they are giving you a roadmap to increasing your share from $50 million to north of $100 million. That'll mute a lot of ego. Doubling your budget is an AD wet dream.This will not work. Too many schools would balk at being not being in the top 16. Schools like Wazzu would take this because they're desperate, but how many schools in the top 20-30 believe they belong in the top tier?
Texas, Alabama, Notre Dame, Michigan, Ohio State, Georgia, LSU, USC, Oklahoma, Clemson, Florida, North Carolina, Penn State, Washington, Oregon, & Missouri. There's 16 teams from 16 states and all those schools have rivals who aren't going to be interested in being placed in a lower tier. Auburn? A&M? Florida State? Miami? UCLA? Michigan State? South Carolina? NC State? Arkansas? Ole Miss? You think these schools are going to sign on to be considered not top tier?
Yup. My spidey senses go off the charts when i hear Private Equity, especially since we are the one of the least profitable Red Lobster locations.The P4 conferences can do everything in the plan themselves without the private equity money if they want to. And as psuedonym says, the SEC and Big 10 could just do it and cut out the ACC, Big 12 and the private equity guys. I can promise one thing, private equity isn't trying to invest money in this for the schools to be the ones making money off of it. If the schools are dumb enough to do this they deserve what they get.
College football is kinda like bbq: if it's not inexpensive and something geographically unique, what exactly is the point?Oh, I think they’ll definitely try to maximize revenue, and it’ll be more expensive to access the games
That's great. Until the private equity guys take $80M of your $100M share. And they will.From an ego perspective this is spot on. The kicker though is if you are mid tier SEC they are giving you a roadmap to increasing your share from $50 million to north of $100 million. That'll mute a lot of ego. Doubling your budget is an AD wet dream.
That was my thought. We may not like it but assume the 8 is Bama, OSU, Michigan, Texas, USC, UGA, Oklahoma, and ND.I can’t imagine anyone being ok with a permanent top 8. Teams 9-16ish would riot. Also the gap between tier 1 and tier 2 is way too big for what will be a somewhat subjective decision (using data). But unequal rev sharing is inevitable.
UAPB and EKU. It’s kind of like a Trading Places scenarios where the PE managers have a $1 bet to see if they squander the money.Ok, so 70 schools...
SEC - 16 teams
Big Ten - 18 teams
Big 12 - 16 teams
ACC - 17 teams
Plus ND
That's 68.
Who are the 2 moving up? Apologies if this is addressed somewhere in the article. I haven't completed it yet, but that stuck out to me.
Contracts are still a thing. If 70 schools voluntarily agree to participate in a system that allows the revenue share to disappear at the whims of PE, then they deserve it.That's great. Until the private equity guys take $80M of your $100M share. And they will.
Reading the article. Even if all their rosy projections come true (they won't), and everything works exactly the way they say it will (it won't), only the 16 Tier One schools would see an increase in revenue. The 22 Tier Two schools would see about what SEC and Big are seeing today, the the remaining 32 would see about what the ACC/Big 12 see now. Why would the other 64 schools sign up for this?Contracts are still a thing. If 70 schools voluntarily agree to participate in a system that allows the revenue share to disappear at the whims of PE, then they deserve it.
We are at 50 now correct? It said tier 2 transitions from 60 up to 110. Does the ABC contract goes up similarly?Reading the article. Even if all their rosy projections come true (they won't), and everything works exactly the way they say it will (it won't), only the 16 Tier One schools would see an increase in revenue. The 22 Tier Two schools would see about what SEC and Big are seeing today, the the remaining 32 would see about what the ACC/Big 12 see now. Why would the other 64 schools sign up for this?
My guess is they are trying to leverage the big boys against the rest of us. “If you don’t want to join that’s fine but you will be playing Southern Miss on the CW and making 3 million dollars a year for your TV contract. While the rest of us are making bank.”Reading the article. Even if all their rosy projections come true (they won't), and everything works exactly the way they say it will (it won't), only the 16 Tier One schools would see an increase in revenue. The 22 Tier Two schools would see about what SEC and Big are seeing today, the the remaining 32 would see about what the ACC/Big 12 see now. Why would the other 64 schools sign up for this?
Memphis****Ok, so 70 schools...
SEC - 16 teams
Big Ten - 18 teams
Big 12 - 16 teams
ACC - 17 teams
Plus ND
That's 68.
Who are the 2 moving up? Apologies if this is addressed somewhere in the article. I haven't completed it yet, but that stuck out to me.
I've lost the plot in all of this but I've honestly stopped worrying about it. I'll be interested until I'm not.College football is kinda like bbq: if it's not inexpensive and something geographically unique, what exactly is the point?
It would be wise for another separate group to model out a league that includes everyone but the top 16. Might prove that the top needs the rest. Might prove that they can tell the rest of us to get 17ed. But at least it then gives somebody objective ammo to win the eventual battle of the wealthiest programs vs the rest.My guess is they are trying to leverage the big boys against the rest of us. “If you don’t want to join that’s fine but you will be playing Southern Miss on the CW and making 3 million dollars a year for your TV contract. While the rest of us are making bank.”
I could seriously seeing DiCaprio from Wolf of Wall Street saying it.
The Big 12 and ACC teams would potentially see an increase in revenue if they bump themselves up into the 1st or 2nd Tier. The only ones that are really going to get squeezed are traditionally lower level Big Ten and SEC schools like us, Indiana, Minnesota, Northwestern, Ole Miss, Vanderbilt, etc.Reading the article. Even if all their rosy projections come true (they won't), and everything works exactly the way they say it will (it won't), only the 16 Tier One schools would see an increase in revenue. The 22 Tier Two schools would see about what SEC and Big are seeing today, the the remaining 32 would see about what the ACC/Big 12 see now. Why would the other 64 schools sign up for this?
Yep. This past weekend is what makes CFB great. LSU vs Ohio State may seem cool at first but it will get old and won’t draw enough interest over time.It would be wise for another separate group to model out a league that includes everyone but the top 16. Might prove that the top needs the rest. Might prove that they can tell the rest of us to get 17ed. But at least it then gives somebody objective ammo to win the eventual battle of the wealthiest programs vs the rest.
Sankey and Petitti won't agree to this. They and their conference lose to much power.Why would the other 64 schools sign up for this?
Yep. This past weekend is what makes CFB great. LSU vs Ohio State may seem cool at first but it will get old and won’t draw enough interest over time.
This made me laugh…
This made me laugh…