A full share is the only thing we should be interested in. Laughable if ucla did this without a full share offer, which means it's likely bs, or their leadership is even worse than ours.
The Latest Rumors
261,907 Views |
1901 Replies |
Last: 1 yr ago by Bobodeluxe
Under normal circumstances I would agree Cal should only be in for a full share. But this is not a normal circumstance. With the LA schools gone the conference has a lot less value in the market. The reported media rights money being offered is paltry. So there is a gulf of approximately $40M just in TV revenues.bearsandgiants said:
A full share is the only thing we should be interested in. Laughable if ucla did this without a full share offer, which means it's likely bs, or their leadership is even worse than ours.
The Big 10 has said on the record that they are not done. And that they want west coast partners for USC and UCLA. Drops the value more as TV does not want a deal where the remaining teams could go at any time. The Big 12 is making similar statements. That they are open for business and "looking west".
So Cal needs a place to make up the revenue shortfall. The Big 10 is the best place for that to happen. Will it? Seems like a big maybe. They prefer Notre Dame, Stanford, UO and UW. But Notre Dame is staying independent for now.
Kliavkoff thinks he can get a TV deal and GOR that the schools will sign. He may get a better deal than is being reported. Amazon saw the ratings and subscription boost that having the NFL provided. And may now be willing to partner with college football as well. If they want the P12 it could provide a reasonable payout in combination with a linear provider like ESPN.
Will UO and UW sign it? Perhaps but some are reporting that they want an "easy" exit clause if the Big 10 were to offer an invite.
This is a big deal. The future of the P12 is up in the air. There are programs that despite their public unity claims would leave in a nanosecond if the Big 10 comes calling and the Big 12 could easily take some of what is left. Cal is in a tough spot. They are not on the Big 12 list apparently and may be #5 on a short list for the Big 10 which may take 4. Or 2 or none.
The regents meeting tomorrow could help or hurt Cal. They likely punish UCLA in some fashion. Is it enough to get UCLA to back out? Is it enough to get the Big 10 to invite Cal to get this thing settled? Or do they just set up protocols for further change that make any future move more difficult?
There are a lot of moving parts including the expansion of the CFP. It is interesting to note that the media rights apparently will pay USC and UCLA approximately $75M in the Big 10. However the total revenue distribution after bowl games and NCAA basketball tournaments payouts and other revenue streams is projected to be roughly $100M annually. Having 8 teams in bowls and multiple teams playing deep into the NCAA hoops tourney as well as having well attended and watched conference championships is worth a pretty penny.
So Cal entering at a less than full share of the TV money still is a good deal. They will share in all the other revenue streams as well. The CFP money due to expansion is not known at this time but will be a significant number. And shared downstream as well. And Amazon is still negotiating with the Big 10 for the late window TV rights which would include the west coast schools and likely shut the P12 out.
The continuation of the P12 with a decent TV rights deal is what most of us would prefer. But that seems less likely to me than a break up with the P12 for several programs. So if Cal gets a lifeline to the Big 10 for even a 50% share to start they likely need to take it.
So what Kliavkof is saying is that UCLA's move to the Big Ten doesn't make sense unless the Big Ten also invites a handful of other Pac-12 teams to help reduce travel costs.philbert said:Here's a clip of Pac-12 commissioner George Kliavkoff talking about UCLA. @kliavkoff believes the Bruins will lose money -- not make it -- by going to the Big Ten.
— John Canzano (@johncanzanobft) September 20, 2022
Full podcast:
Soundcloud: https://t.co/hqwey7TsNA
Apple: https://t.co/0alXZbX7qO
Spotify: https://t.co/OF9nb0Oe9e pic.twitter.com/XwlYntabuR
Big Ten Commissioner was quoted on 7/26 at the conference media days as saying USC and UCLA come in as full members, with a full share. Was that a false statement?wifeisafurd said:USC was voted full share, UCLA was not. Just one of the few surprises coming when UCLA documents become public.BigDaddy said:They were voted in as full members receiving full shares of the new media rights package.gardenstatebear said:Isn't it true that UCLA and USC will get a full share immediately? Or is that just an internet rumor? Rutgers and Maryland, by contrast, went through a seven-year transition period.berserkeley said:I sincerely doubt that the four schools would receive different payouts.MrGPAC said:OdontoBear66 said:The money is so critical but why can't it be started at a lower rate to satisfy the existing members and then promises or contracts to gradually increase with time. We all know because this is about money it will be worth much more tomorrow than today, so promises can be made to UW, UO, 'furd and Cal. This whole money thing makes me think of Arte Moreno just announcing plans to sell the Angels---bought about 15 years ago for under $200M, I think I recall, with an asking now of $2B....MrGPAC said:
As far as I can tell there are two major hangups to Oregon/Washington/Cal/Stanford being invited to the B1G:
1) Money. It all comes down to money. Oregon/Washington/Cal/Stanford aren't worth as much as UCLA/USC, and the current schools aren't going to take a pay cut to let these 4 schools in. That means they will have to take a smaller slice of the pie. The question then becomes how much smaller.
I'm sure the B1G schools would like to pay as little a possible (giving any extra money earned to the rest of the conference members), and Oregon/Washington/Cal/Stanford would want as much as possible (and certainly more than they'd get if they don't jump ship). This is going to come down to what the schools think they can get if they don't join the B1G, set that as a floor, and then how much more than that they think they are worth.
Everyone has big plans for these new arrangements so why not a graduated entrance. Cal would probably start out with just about what they get from the Pac and then incrementally increase.
The point is it's something that would have to be negotiated and would take time to get all 4 schools to agree to. Oregon wants more than cal/Stanford....cal is just happy for the invite, uw is negotiating to be on same tier or better than Oregon... A lot can go on there.
In principle the b1g could say they wanted the four schools tomorrow and it could take a month to finalize.
Possibly even longer with potential battles from Oregon state and Washington state, and cal having to go through the uc regents for approval. You may think that's a no brainer on the regents part....but they also want financial models if cal were to drop to d3....
For one, the former president of Fox Sports said that Oregon + Washington were worth about $60 million and Cal + Stanford were worth $90 million so they don't deserve more.
For another, they hold no cards to be making any kind of demand. I am sure the Big Ten is more than happy to leave Oregon behind if they start making demands.
And, finally, the Big Ten is an "everyone takes the same reduced cut until becoming full fledged members and then everyone earns the same cut" kind of conference so I doubt they'd even entertain the idea of paying out new members at different rates.
In that regard: Kilavkoff claims UCLA losses money in joining B1G due to addtonal expenses exceeding increased revenue.
CBMie2h0dHBzOi8vd3d3LnNpLmNvbS9jb2xsZWdlLzIwMjIvMDkvMjAvcGFjLTEyLWNvbW1pc3Npb25lci1nZW9yZ2Uta2xpYXZrb2ZmLXdlbGNvbWVzLXBvc3NpYmlsaXR5LW9mLXVjbGEtcmVtYWluaW5nLWluLWxlYWd1ZdIBgAFodHRwczovL3d3dy5zaS5jb20vLmFtcC9jb2xsZWdlLzIwMjIvMDkvMjAvcGFjLTEyLWNvbW1pc3Npb25lci1nZW9yZ2Uta2xpYXZrb2ZmLXdlbGNvbWVzLXBvc3NpYmlsaXR5LW9mLXVjbGEtcmVtYWluaW5nLWluLWxlYWd1ZQ
yes, If full share means amount of revenue. They are getting less than SC.sosheezy said:Big Ten Commissioner was quoted on 7/26 at the conference media days as saying USC and UCLA come in as full members, with a full share. Was that a false statement?wifeisafurd said:USC was voted full share, UCLA was not. Just one of the few surprises coming when UCLA documents become public.BigDaddy said:They were voted in as full members receiving full shares of the new media rights package.gardenstatebear said:Isn't it true that UCLA and USC will get a full share immediately? Or is that just an internet rumor? Rutgers and Maryland, by contrast, went through a seven-year transition period.berserkeley said:I sincerely doubt that the four schools would receive different payouts.MrGPAC said:OdontoBear66 said:The money is so critical but why can't it be started at a lower rate to satisfy the existing members and then promises or contracts to gradually increase with time. We all know because this is about money it will be worth much more tomorrow than today, so promises can be made to UW, UO, 'furd and Cal. This whole money thing makes me think of Arte Moreno just announcing plans to sell the Angels---bought about 15 years ago for under $200M, I think I recall, with an asking now of $2B....MrGPAC said:
As far as I can tell there are two major hangups to Oregon/Washington/Cal/Stanford being invited to the B1G:
1) Money. It all comes down to money. Oregon/Washington/Cal/Stanford aren't worth as much as UCLA/USC, and the current schools aren't going to take a pay cut to let these 4 schools in. That means they will have to take a smaller slice of the pie. The question then becomes how much smaller.
I'm sure the B1G schools would like to pay as little a possible (giving any extra money earned to the rest of the conference members), and Oregon/Washington/Cal/Stanford would want as much as possible (and certainly more than they'd get if they don't jump ship). This is going to come down to what the schools think they can get if they don't join the B1G, set that as a floor, and then how much more than that they think they are worth.
Everyone has big plans for these new arrangements so why not a graduated entrance. Cal would probably start out with just about what they get from the Pac and then incrementally increase.
The point is it's something that would have to be negotiated and would take time to get all 4 schools to agree to. Oregon wants more than cal/Stanford....cal is just happy for the invite, uw is negotiating to be on same tier or better than Oregon... A lot can go on there.
In principle the b1g could say they wanted the four schools tomorrow and it could take a month to finalize.
Possibly even longer with potential battles from Oregon state and Washington state, and cal having to go through the uc regents for approval. You may think that's a no brainer on the regents part....but they also want financial models if cal were to drop to d3....
For one, the former president of Fox Sports said that Oregon + Washington were worth about $60 million and Cal + Stanford were worth $90 million so they don't deserve more.
For another, they hold no cards to be making any kind of demand. I am sure the Big Ten is more than happy to leave Oregon behind if they start making demands.
And, finally, the Big Ten is an "everyone takes the same reduced cut until becoming full fledged members and then everyone earns the same cut" kind of conference so I doubt they'd even entertain the idea of paying out new members at different rates.
In that regard: Kilavkoff claims UCLA losses money in joining B1G due to addtonal expenses exceeding increased revenue.
CBMie2h0dHBzOi8vd3d3LnNpLmNvbS9jb2xsZWdlLzIwMjIvMDkvMjAvcGFjLTEyLWNvbW1pc3Npb25lci1nZW9yZ2Uta2xpYXZrb2ZmLXdlbGNvbWVzLXBvc3NpYmlsaXR5LW9mLXVjbGEtcmVtYWluaW5nLWluLWxlYWd1ZdIBgAFodHRwczovL3d3dy5zaS5jb20vLmFtcC9jb2xsZWdlLzIwMjIvMDkvMjAvcGFjLTEyLWNvbW1pc3Npb25lci1nZW9yZ2Uta2xpYXZrb2ZmLXdlbGNvbWVzLXBvc3NpYmlsaXR5LW9mLXVjbGEtcmVtYWluaW5nLWluLWxlYWd1ZQ
hopefully not a booth:
The Amazon factor and realignment:
CAIiEIeNtUkEre7N7lxWG_Vyv_8qFggEKg4IACoGCAow5tYTMODEAjCCuwQ
The Amazon factor and realignment:
CAIiEIeNtUkEre7N7lxWG_Vyv_8qFggEKg4IACoGCAow5tYTMODEAjCCuwQ
What he's saying is that moving to the Big Ten results in a bigger department with higher salaries for coaches and administrators. The Athletic Industrial Complex prefers that world. Business isn't always about profitability, sometimes it's just about empire-building. What he's saying is music to the ears of the administrators/bureaucrats.berserkeley said:So what Kliavkof is saying is that UCLA's move to the Big Ten doesn't make sense unless the Big Ten also invites a handful of other Pac-12 teams to help reduce travel costs.philbert said:Here's a clip of Pac-12 commissioner George Kliavkoff talking about UCLA. @kliavkoff believes the Bruins will lose money -- not make it -- by going to the Big Ten.
— John Canzano (@johncanzanobft) September 20, 2022
Full podcast:
Soundcloud: https://t.co/hqwey7TsNA
Apple: https://t.co/0alXZbX7qO
Spotify: https://t.co/OF9nb0Oe9e pic.twitter.com/XwlYntabuR
Is there a world where the UC Regents penalize UCLA and require payments to Cal based on UCLA's 75 million payout, but then Cal gets an invite to the B1G at a reduced level, but with UCLA's continued obligation to pay Cal we would get more than UCLA through the B1G deal?wifeisafurd said:
hopefully not a booth:
The Amazon factor and realignment:
CAIiEIeNtUkEre7N7lxWG_Vyv_8qFggEKg4IACoGCAow5tYTMODEAjCCuwQ
Or is the more likely reality that once Cal is invited, no matter the terms of payout to Cal, UCLA would no longer be on the hook to make payments to Cal?
If all this is about equity and money, then the terms being entered into for each and every step and for each and every party makes a big difference in how reparations will be determined both in amount and time. Will the B1G take into consideration how much Cal is offered at the time of an invite based on what the Regents determine is the likely penalty? We could make out like rockstars or fools depending on how different players react to things moving forward. How funny would it be if Cal actually leap frogs UCLA in B1G earnings because of their greediness as a first mover? Cal is still damaged by UCLA taking a first bite at the apple. I know it isn't likely that UCLA would pay beyond Cal's own invite, but one can dream.
My personal view is that UCLA's departure devalued the Pac-12's contract and that would be the basis for any damages that Cal could claim. So if Cal were to join the B1G and get at least what the annual revenue would have been from a new Pac-12 contract that included USC/UCLA (ie $40M-$50M), then I don't see a basis for damage claims. So there would be no UCLA "subsidy" to Cal in that situation
In any case, I'm highly doubtful the Regents will be able to make UCLA pay Cal from their B1G share. On the other hand, I could see the UC budget from the state reallocated in favor of Cal to compensate. But admittedly, I don't know how the UC budget works.
In any case, I'm highly doubtful the Regents will be able to make UCLA pay Cal from their B1G share. On the other hand, I could see the UC budget from the state reallocated in favor of Cal to compensate. But admittedly, I don't know how the UC budget works.
I'm still convinced the following breakdown will occur; Cal, stanfurd, Washinton & Oregon in the Big 10. WSU & OSU in the Mountain West & Az., ASU, Colorado & Utah in the Big 12. Only time, of course will tell.
Well, both times he mentioned it, he mentioned the travel expenses first and the coaches salaries second.Unit2Sucks said:What he's saying is that moving to the Big Ten results in a bigger department with higher salaries for coaches and administrators. The Athletic Industrial Complex prefers that world. Business isn't always about profitability, sometimes it's just about empire-building. What he's saying is music to the ears of the administrators/bureaucrats.berserkeley said:So what Kliavkof is saying is that UCLA's move to the Big Ten doesn't make sense unless the Big Ten also invites a handful of other Pac-12 teams to help reduce travel costs.philbert said:Here's a clip of Pac-12 commissioner George Kliavkoff talking about UCLA. @kliavkoff believes the Bruins will lose money -- not make it -- by going to the Big Ten.
— John Canzano (@johncanzanobft) September 20, 2022
Full podcast:
Soundcloud: https://t.co/hqwey7TsNA
Apple: https://t.co/0alXZbX7qO
Spotify: https://t.co/OF9nb0Oe9e pic.twitter.com/XwlYntabuR
But part of the reason USC and UCLA want more money is so they can afford to pay coaches salaries that are competitive with the Big Ten and the SEC. They're not making extra money because they're spending it on the things they wanted the extra money for in the first place? What a strange and silly point to make.
Pretty sure this is an either/or scenario. If Cal also gets their own share of B1G money, then UCLA doesn't have to split theirs up. If not, then maybe they do.CALiforniALUM said:Is there a world where the UC Regents penalize UCLA and require payments to Cal based on UCLA's 75 million payout, but then Cal gets an invite to the B1G at a reduced level, but with UCLA's continued obligation to pay Cal we would get more than UCLA through the B1G deal?wifeisafurd said:
hopefully not a booth:
The Amazon factor and realignment:
CAIiEIeNtUkEre7N7lxWG_Vyv_8qFggEKg4IACoGCAow5tYTMODEAjCCuwQ
Or is the more likely reality that once Cal is invited, no matter the terms of payout to Cal, UCLA would no longer be on the hook to make payments to Cal?
Kliavkoff is wrong. UCLA and USC are entering as full members making a full share. As far as his projections, they're laughable, both for what the Pac-12 media deal will be worth as well as for UCLA expenses. Calling their new $$$ from the B1G "incremental" is LMFAO funny.wifeisafurd said:USC was voted full share, UCLA was not. Just one of the few surprises coming when UCLA documents become public.BigDaddy said:They were voted in as full members receiving full shares of the new media rights package.gardenstatebear said:Isn't it true that UCLA and USC will get a full share immediately? Or is that just an internet rumor? Rutgers and Maryland, by contrast, went through a seven-year transition period.berserkeley said:I sincerely doubt that the four schools would receive different payouts.MrGPAC said:OdontoBear66 said:The money is so critical but why can't it be started at a lower rate to satisfy the existing members and then promises or contracts to gradually increase with time. We all know because this is about money it will be worth much more tomorrow than today, so promises can be made to UW, UO, 'furd and Cal. This whole money thing makes me think of Arte Moreno just announcing plans to sell the Angels---bought about 15 years ago for under $200M, I think I recall, with an asking now of $2B....MrGPAC said:
As far as I can tell there are two major hangups to Oregon/Washington/Cal/Stanford being invited to the B1G:
1) Money. It all comes down to money. Oregon/Washington/Cal/Stanford aren't worth as much as UCLA/USC, and the current schools aren't going to take a pay cut to let these 4 schools in. That means they will have to take a smaller slice of the pie. The question then becomes how much smaller.
I'm sure the B1G schools would like to pay as little a possible (giving any extra money earned to the rest of the conference members), and Oregon/Washington/Cal/Stanford would want as much as possible (and certainly more than they'd get if they don't jump ship). This is going to come down to what the schools think they can get if they don't join the B1G, set that as a floor, and then how much more than that they think they are worth.
Everyone has big plans for these new arrangements so why not a graduated entrance. Cal would probably start out with just about what they get from the Pac and then incrementally increase.
The point is it's something that would have to be negotiated and would take time to get all 4 schools to agree to. Oregon wants more than cal/Stanford....cal is just happy for the invite, uw is negotiating to be on same tier or better than Oregon... A lot can go on there.
In principle the b1g could say they wanted the four schools tomorrow and it could take a month to finalize.
Possibly even longer with potential battles from Oregon state and Washington state, and cal having to go through the uc regents for approval. You may think that's a no brainer on the regents part....but they also want financial models if cal were to drop to d3....
For one, the former president of Fox Sports said that Oregon + Washington were worth about $60 million and Cal + Stanford were worth $90 million so they don't deserve more.
For another, they hold no cards to be making any kind of demand. I am sure the Big Ten is more than happy to leave Oregon behind if they start making demands.
And, finally, the Big Ten is an "everyone takes the same reduced cut until becoming full fledged members and then everyone earns the same cut" kind of conference so I doubt they'd even entertain the idea of paying out new members at different rates.
In that regard: Kilavkoff claims UCLA losses money in joining B1G due to addtonal expenses exceeding increased revenue.
CBMie2h0dHBzOi8vd3d3LnNpLmNvbS9jb2xsZWdlLzIwMjIvMDkvMjAvcGFjLTEyLWNvbW1pc3Npb25lci1nZW9yZ2Uta2xpYXZrb2ZmLXdlbGNvbWVzLXBvc3NpYmlsaXR5LW9mLXVjbGEtcmVtYWluaW5nLWluLWxlYWd1ZdIBgAFodHRwczovL3d3dy5zaS5jb20vLmFtcC9jb2xsZWdlLzIwMjIvMDkvMjAvcGFjLTEyLWNvbW1pc3Npb25lci1nZW9yZ2Uta2xpYXZrb2ZmLXdlbGNvbWVzLXBvc3NpYmlsaXR5LW9mLXVjbGEtcmVtYWluaW5nLWluLWxlYWd1ZQ
INDIANAPOLIS In the midst of his Big Ten Media Day press conference Tuesday, Commissioner Kevin Warren dropped a nugget that turned some heads in Lincoln, College Park and Piscataway.
USC and UCLA, the newest members of the conference, will enter the league in 2024 as full members. That means immediate access to the full distribution of the revenue from an upcoming media rights deal that is expected to surpass $1 billion annually.
It is a departure from the precedent set by the league when it added Rutgers, Maryland and Nebraska under Warren's predecessor Jim Delaney. Those three schools signed agreements that had them wait six years before earning a full share of the conference's revenue.
Why did the California schools get treated differently?
"Every situation stands on its own merit and evaluating this circumstance with UCLA and USC, we felt it was prudent for them to come in as full members into the conference," Warren told NJ Advance Media on Wednesday. "We evaluate everything on a case-by-case basis. On top of that, we have a lot of issues we are working through right now, but we are making sure we do everything we can to evaluate, as we go forward with all of our members, to make sure we address all the financial ramifications and impact and make sure we stay on the same page."
As Big Ten Network analyst and former Indiana head coach Gerry DiNardo put it when asked about the situation: It's all about leverage, and UCLA and USC had a ton of it.
"Rutgers and Maryland did not have any leverage," DiNardo told NJ Advance Media. "Nebraska, Coach Osborne thought Texas and Texas A&M were going to go to the Pac-12 and that Nebraska was not going to have a home. … That's a lot different than USC and UCLA. You cut whatever deal you can. The Big Ten cut a deal with Rutgers, Nebraska and Maryland that benefitted both sides. I'm guessing UCLA and USC said 'we'll only come if we get a full share right away.' Leverage."
“My tastes are simple; I am easily satisfied with the best.” - Winston Churchill
Kliavkoff did not say UCLA isn't getting a full share, WIAF did. Am a bit curious why Wilner/Canzano aren't reporting this?
But the critical way to look at the 'incremental' nature of the Big 10 revenue is to look at the Pac 12 revenue if UCLA stays and helps the conference retain presence in the LA market. In a UCLA stays plus add SDSU scenario, is it a far stretch to say each Pac 12 teams receives $55M/year between ESPN and say Amazon? Let's assume the Big Ten equal share thing is true and they would get $75M a year. The key is then what is the increase in travel and administrative costs for their entire athletic program and AD. If it's close to $12-15M/year then they're abandoning a lot for $5-8M more a year. Let alone the impact to families of student athletes, students, alums, and donors ability to see travel and attend road games. And they are leaving a conference where they should have a stronger chance to make the Playoff for one where they have a weaker claim. Unequal sharing of conference playoff money based on participation is likely on the table for the Pac 12 remaining teams to entice them to stay. There's a case is what I'm saying.
But the critical way to look at the 'incremental' nature of the Big 10 revenue is to look at the Pac 12 revenue if UCLA stays and helps the conference retain presence in the LA market. In a UCLA stays plus add SDSU scenario, is it a far stretch to say each Pac 12 teams receives $55M/year between ESPN and say Amazon? Let's assume the Big Ten equal share thing is true and they would get $75M a year. The key is then what is the increase in travel and administrative costs for their entire athletic program and AD. If it's close to $12-15M/year then they're abandoning a lot for $5-8M more a year. Let alone the impact to families of student athletes, students, alums, and donors ability to see travel and attend road games. And they are leaving a conference where they should have a stronger chance to make the Playoff for one where they have a weaker claim. Unequal sharing of conference playoff money based on participation is likely on the table for the Pac 12 remaining teams to entice them to stay. There's a case is what I'm saying.
Food for thought.
https://awfulannouncing.com/ncaa/big-ten-not-done-expanding-escalator-clause.html#:~:text=The%20contract%20includes%20an%20escalator,expanding%2C%20sources%20told%20Action%20Network.
But McMurphy's addition of the $10 billion dollar value here is notable. It's certainly interesting that there's some combination of discussed expansion that would get these networks to fork out an approximate $2.3 billion more in total (almost 30 percent of what they've agreed to pay so far). And while expansion by four or five schools would make those numbers continue to look good for the existing schools, it's not clear if that represents good value for the networks, especially if this doesn't wind up including Notre Dame. So it's possible that this escalator clause only goes that high with much bigger or more significant expansion. At any rate, it will be something well worth keeping an eye on.
Also.
https://www.si.com/college/texas-tech/news/red-raiders-big-12-big-ten-media-deal-expansion-arizona-state-colorado-utah-oregon-washington
The clause that adds $2 billion to the deal. should the Big Ten expand again. And that's not a random addition, either. Clearly, the Big Ten isn't done adding teams, and they anticipate further expansion soon.
The high end probably includes Notre Dame. But for discussion sake, say we are looking at $1.6 to $1.7 Billion. Over 7 years (the terms of the agreement) for the 4 teams (Oregon-Washington-Stanford-California) they add, it would be about $55 to $60 million a year per school. Does not include any money from bowls, playoffs and other revenue.
Most likely (what has happened in the past), next agreement they would be equal partners receiving equal shares.
Another benefit of the Big Ten.
https://businessofcollegesports.com/finance/big-ten-ticket-revenue/#:~:text=Today%2C%20the%20Big%20Ten%20shares%20gate%20receipts%20from,making%20the%20maximum%20for%20the%20season%20%244%20million.
According to the Big Ten, revenue sharing for gate receipts has been a staple of the conference since the 1950s. Back then, teams shared 50% of their gate receipts with no minimum or maximum per game.
Today, the Big Ten shares gate receipts from both football and men's basketball. For football, schools contribute 35% of the gate receipts for all home games against conference opponents. The minimum contribution per game is $300,000 and the maximum is $1 million, making the maximum for the season $4 million. The pool is divided equally between all schools.
I will leave with this. The Big Ten likes to have travel partners for their schools. If you have USC-UCLA, Oregon-Washington, it only makes sense to have Stanford-Cal if you add Stanford.
https://awfulannouncing.com/ncaa/big-ten-not-done-expanding-escalator-clause.html#:~:text=The%20contract%20includes%20an%20escalator,expanding%2C%20sources%20told%20Action%20Network.
But McMurphy's addition of the $10 billion dollar value here is notable. It's certainly interesting that there's some combination of discussed expansion that would get these networks to fork out an approximate $2.3 billion more in total (almost 30 percent of what they've agreed to pay so far). And while expansion by four or five schools would make those numbers continue to look good for the existing schools, it's not clear if that represents good value for the networks, especially if this doesn't wind up including Notre Dame. So it's possible that this escalator clause only goes that high with much bigger or more significant expansion. At any rate, it will be something well worth keeping an eye on.
Also.
https://www.si.com/college/texas-tech/news/red-raiders-big-12-big-ten-media-deal-expansion-arizona-state-colorado-utah-oregon-washington
The clause that adds $2 billion to the deal. should the Big Ten expand again. And that's not a random addition, either. Clearly, the Big Ten isn't done adding teams, and they anticipate further expansion soon.
The high end probably includes Notre Dame. But for discussion sake, say we are looking at $1.6 to $1.7 Billion. Over 7 years (the terms of the agreement) for the 4 teams (Oregon-Washington-Stanford-California) they add, it would be about $55 to $60 million a year per school. Does not include any money from bowls, playoffs and other revenue.
Most likely (what has happened in the past), next agreement they would be equal partners receiving equal shares.
Another benefit of the Big Ten.
https://businessofcollegesports.com/finance/big-ten-ticket-revenue/#:~:text=Today%2C%20the%20Big%20Ten%20shares%20gate%20receipts%20from,making%20the%20maximum%20for%20the%20season%20%244%20million.
According to the Big Ten, revenue sharing for gate receipts has been a staple of the conference since the 1950s. Back then, teams shared 50% of their gate receipts with no minimum or maximum per game.
Today, the Big Ten shares gate receipts from both football and men's basketball. For football, schools contribute 35% of the gate receipts for all home games against conference opponents. The minimum contribution per game is $300,000 and the maximum is $1 million, making the maximum for the season $4 million. The pool is divided equally between all schools.
I will leave with this. The Big Ten likes to have travel partners for their schools. If you have USC-UCLA, Oregon-Washington, it only makes sense to have Stanford-Cal if you add Stanford.
I have posted this else where but it seems like it is an important and part of the issue. USC and UCLA are eliminating about 250 million from the PAC 12 media rights, or about 125 million per year each. Based on the contract, they are getting about 150 million total - and transferring to the Big 10 the additional 100 million that used to be spread around the PAC 12.
So Cal, for example, is damaged by about 10 million per year, based on that calculation. My guess is that UCLA is not the driver of the revenue but it does seem like there would be some room for recalculation if the PAC 12 keeps someone in LA. Would the PAC 11 then agree to addition funds to UCLA? I kids of think that would not fly but you never know. And it would be a nice way to screw SC.
The second part is that I think there were 7 times over the past 10 years where the PAC 12 would have received multiple invitations to the 12 team playoff. If that is 125 million per, that is an additional 250 million for those years. So you could see a total package coming on at an average of about 50-55 million average per year over the course of time.
What the Big 12 is looking at is adding San Diego State, Fresno, Boise and perhaps UNLV or someone else like that to kill the mountain west and take the PAC 12 after dark slot. I just do not see those being huge games, but Boise playing Okie State in November would be a decent draw. So I wonder if it would be worthwhile to take San Diego State, as they would be the class of the that group. Probably not totally additive but it would be similar to Washington and Washington State, for California and San Diego Stinkin' State...
So Cal, for example, is damaged by about 10 million per year, based on that calculation. My guess is that UCLA is not the driver of the revenue but it does seem like there would be some room for recalculation if the PAC 12 keeps someone in LA. Would the PAC 11 then agree to addition funds to UCLA? I kids of think that would not fly but you never know. And it would be a nice way to screw SC.
The second part is that I think there were 7 times over the past 10 years where the PAC 12 would have received multiple invitations to the 12 team playoff. If that is 125 million per, that is an additional 250 million for those years. So you could see a total package coming on at an average of about 50-55 million average per year over the course of time.
What the Big 12 is looking at is adding San Diego State, Fresno, Boise and perhaps UNLV or someone else like that to kill the mountain west and take the PAC 12 after dark slot. I just do not see those being huge games, but Boise playing Okie State in November would be a decent draw. So I wonder if it would be worthwhile to take San Diego State, as they would be the class of the that group. Probably not totally additive but it would be similar to Washington and Washington State, for California and San Diego Stinkin' State...
Cal, Hawaii, Davis and Sac. State.
The Fab Four.
The Fab Four.
I did. UCLA is not getting the same revenue as USC. Full share means different things than equal revenue.sosheezy said:
Kliavkoff did not say UCLA isn't getting a full share, WIAF did. Am a bit curious why Wilner/Canzano aren't reporting this?
But the critical way to look at the 'incremental' nature of the Big 10 revenue is to look at the Pac 12 revenue if UCLA stays and helps the conference retain presence in the LA market. In a UCLA stays plus add SDSU scenario, is it a far stretch to say each Pac 12 teams receives $55M/year between ESPN and say Amazon? Let's assume the Big Ten equal share thing is true and they would get $75M a year. The key is then what is the increase in travel and administrative costs for their entire athletic program and AD. If it's close to $12-15M/year then they're abandoning a lot for $5-8M more a year. Let alone the impact to families of student athletes, students, alums, and donors ability to see travel and attend road games. And they are leaving a conference where they should have a stronger chance to make the Playoff for one where they have a weaker claim. Unequal sharing of conference playoff money based on participation is likely on the table for the Pac 12 remaining teams to entice them to stay. There's a case is what I'm saying.
Also, for those not following, the B1G also is likely to provide a revenue share to athletes.
There is continued speculation about what "The Regents can make UCLA do/pay/et. al." but from the get-go, there were several comments about The Regents not having any say over what the UC schools do athletically.OskiDeLaHoya said:
My personal view is that UCLA's departure devalued the Pac-12's contract and that would be the basis for any damages that Cal could claim. So if Cal were to join the B1G and get at least what the annual revenue would have been from a new Pac-12 contract that included USC/UCLA (ie $40M-$50M), then I don't see a basis for damage claims. So there would be no UCLA "subsidy" to Cal in that situation
In any case, I'm highly doubtful the Regents will be able to make UCLA pay Cal from their B1G share. On the other hand, I could see the UC budget from the state reallocated in favor of Cal to compensate. But admittedly, I don't know how the UC budget works.
So I guess there is a "pay up or we will make your life harder on other fronts (if that is even possible)" I certainly don't see anything coming from this at all...again, unless some leverage exists that we are missing....
UCLA is not getting their full $ share. I heard about how much they are getting but promised not to disclose.
Not trying to be a pill here, legitimately trying to understand the difference. All of the reporting is saying all the Big Ten teams are splitting media money equally, with Maryland/Rutgers of the world are now being elevated to equal with all the other teams, and USC/USC getting equal dollars as all the other teams. I can get that the reporting is wrong, or technically inaccurate, but can you explain how?wifeisafurd said:
I did. UCLA is not getting the same revenue as USC. Full share means different things than equal revenue.
Also, for those not following, the B1G also is likely to provide a revenue share to athletes.
Does the Big Ten split media money unequally? Which teams make more or less? How is full share different that equal revenue as you are hearing it?
If that is the case, they are getting shafted. USC and UCLA are fully bringing 25% of the total value to the Big 10 contracts. That is 250 million per year. And they go in for less than full share?Goobear said:
UCLA is not getting their full $ share. I heard about how much they are getting but promised not to disclose.
If they drop out, how much is USC really going to be worth with them on the road 4-5 hours away every other weekend getting pummeled because they are exhausted, while UCLA is playing it's traditional rivalrles?
mbBear said:There is continued speculation about what "The Regents can make UCLA do/pay/et. al." but from the get-go, there were several comments about The Regents not having any say over what the UC schools do athletically.OskiDeLaHoya said:
My personal view is that UCLA's departure devalued the Pac-12's contract and that would be the basis for any damages that Cal could claim. So if Cal were to join the B1G and get at least what the annual revenue would have been from a new Pac-12 contract that included USC/UCLA (ie $40M-$50M), then I don't see a basis for damage claims. So there would be no UCLA "subsidy" to Cal in that situation
In any case, I'm highly doubtful the Regents will be able to make UCLA pay Cal from their B1G share. On the other hand, I could see the UC budget from the state reallocated in favor of Cal to compensate. But admittedly, I don't know how the UC budget works.
So I guess there is a "pay up or we will make your life harder on other fronts (if that is even possible)" I certainly don't see anything coming from this at all...again, unless some leverage exists that we are missing....
The Regents can control how much money is allocated to each school though. So a 'payment' from UCLA to Cal could just be framed as a smaller allocation to UCLA and a larger one to Cal. There are likely per student subsidies dictated by the state legislature, but that's not the entire pot UC controls.
wifeisafurd said:I did. UCLA is not getting the same revenue as USC. Full share means different things than equal revenue.sosheezy said:
Kliavkoff did not say UCLA isn't getting a full share, WIAF did. Am a bit curious why Wilner/Canzano aren't reporting this?
But the critical way to look at the 'incremental' nature of the Big 10 revenue is to look at the Pac 12 revenue if UCLA stays and helps the conference retain presence in the LA market. In a UCLA stays plus add SDSU scenario, is it a far stretch to say each Pac 12 teams receives $55M/year between ESPN and say Amazon? Let's assume the Big Ten equal share thing is true and they would get $75M a year. The key is then what is the increase in travel and administrative costs for their entire athletic program and AD. If it's close to $12-15M/year then they're abandoning a lot for $5-8M more a year. Let alone the impact to families of student athletes, students, alums, and donors ability to see travel and attend road games. And they are leaving a conference where they should have a stronger chance to make the Playoff for one where they have a weaker claim. Unequal sharing of conference playoff money based on participation is likely on the table for the Pac 12 remaining teams to entice them to stay. There's a case is what I'm saying.
Also, for those not following, the B1G also is likely to provide a revenue share to athletes.
The revenue share to athletes is interesting. Would hope it's only for sports with revenue or at least scaled. And if it comes directly from the conference it's a way for schools like Furd to still maintain their 'morality' on having student athletes as employees as the school itself is NOT paying.
But obviously paying players whatever the mechanism out of TV money means less TV money to pay for other athletic department interests. At the same time, if UCLA's players are getting $$$ from the Big Ten, they will absolutely recruit better than being in a conference where players get a lot less.
There are essentially 3 pots of revenue for conferences:sosheezy said:Not trying to be a pill here, legitimately trying to understand the difference. All of the reporting is saying all the Big Ten teams are splitting media money equally, with Maryland/Rutgers of the world are now being elevated to equal with all the other teams, and USC/USC getting equal dollars as all the other teams. I can get that the reporting is wrong, or technically inaccurate, but can you explain how?wifeisafurd said:
I did. UCLA is not getting the same revenue as USC. Full share means different things than equal revenue.
Also, for those not following, the B1G also is likely to provide a revenue share to athletes.
Does the Big Ten split media money unequally? Which teams make more or less? How is full share different that equal revenue as you are hearing it?
1. Media rights
2. College football playoff appearance money
3. NCAA basketball tournament appearance money
(Individual athletic depts can also make money other ways, most notably by selling tickets and sponsorships).
I BELIEVE the point that WIAF is making, very obliquely as he likes to do, is that although the media rights revenue is split evenly, perhaps the playoff and NCAA tournament money will not be (aka the teams that actually appear will keep much more of it, which was not the case in the PAC. Not sure how the Big 10 does it).
maxer said:There are essentially 3 pots of revenue for conferences:sosheezy said:Not trying to be a pill here, legitimately trying to understand the difference. All of the reporting is saying all the Big Ten teams are splitting media money equally, with Maryland/Rutgers of the world are now being elevated to equal with all the other teams, and USC/USC getting equal dollars as all the other teams. I can get that the reporting is wrong, or technically inaccurate, but can you explain how?wifeisafurd said:
I did. UCLA is not getting the same revenue as USC. Full share means different things than equal revenue.
Also, for those not following, the B1G also is likely to provide a revenue share to athletes.
Does the Big Ten split media money unequally? Which teams make more or less? How is full share different that equal revenue as you are hearing it?
1. Media rights
2. College football playoff appearance money
3. NCAA basketball tournament appearance money
(Individual athletic depts can also make money other ways, most notably by selling tickets and sponsorships).
I BELIEVE the point that WIAF is making, very obliquely as he likes to do, is that although the media rights revenue is split evenly, perhaps the playoff and NCAA tournament money will not be (aka the teams that actually appear will keep much more of it, which was not the case in the PAC. Not sure how the Big 10 does it).
Football media rights are like 10x NCAA basketball tourney shares + CFB Playoff shares though.
I understand that playoffs participation split might be handled differently- and I think the Pac12 if it stays together will adopt that model to appease UW, Oregon etc. But he (and GooBear) are saying USC is flat out getting more, which I take to be of pure media rights split. And the expanded playoff happened after the media deals were struck and the UCLA/USC admittance and revenue splits of basic media rights were agreed to.maxer said:There are essentially 3 pots of revenue for conferences:sosheezy said:Not trying to be a pill here, legitimately trying to understand the difference. All of the reporting is saying all the Big Ten teams are splitting media money equally, with Maryland/Rutgers of the world are now being elevated to equal with all the other teams, and USC/USC getting equal dollars as all the other teams. I can get that the reporting is wrong, or technically inaccurate, but can you explain how?wifeisafurd said:
I did. UCLA is not getting the same revenue as USC. Full share means different things than equal revenue.
Also, for those not following, the B1G also is likely to provide a revenue share to athletes.
Does the Big Ten split media money unequally? Which teams make more or less? How is full share different that equal revenue as you are hearing it?
1. Media rights
2. College football playoff appearance money
3. NCAA basketball tournament appearance money
(Individual athletic depts can also make money other ways, most notably by selling tickets and sponsorships).
I BELIEVE the point that WIAF is making, very obliquely as he likes to do, is that although the media rights revenue is split evenly, perhaps the playoff and NCAA tournament money will not be (aka the teams that actually appear will keep much more of it, which was not the case in the PAC. Not sure how the Big 10 does it).
If i were UCLA I would be howling in protest if I had to make some payment to Cal. The Regents may control how much money is allocated - but they won't step into that.ColoradoBear said:mbBear said:There is continued speculation about what "The Regents can make UCLA do/pay/et. al." but from the get-go, there were several comments about The Regents not having any say over what the UC schools do athletically.OskiDeLaHoya said:
My personal view is that UCLA's departure devalued the Pac-12's contract and that would be the basis for any damages that Cal could claim. So if Cal were to join the B1G and get at least what the annual revenue would have been from a new Pac-12 contract that included USC/UCLA (ie $40M-$50M), then I don't see a basis for damage claims. So there would be no UCLA "subsidy" to Cal in that situation
In any case, I'm highly doubtful the Regents will be able to make UCLA pay Cal from their B1G share. On the other hand, I could see the UC budget from the state reallocated in favor of Cal to compensate. But admittedly, I don't know how the UC budget works.
So I guess there is a "pay up or we will make your life harder on other fronts (if that is even possible)" I certainly don't see anything coming from this at all...again, unless some leverage exists that we are missing....
The Regents can control how much money is allocated to each school though. So a 'payment' from UCLA to Cal could just be framed as a smaller allocation to UCLA and a larger one to Cal. There are likely per student subsidies dictated by the state legislature, but that's not the entire pot UC controls.
I still also think this is the most likely eventual scenario.Dgoldnbaer said:
I'm still convinced the following breakdown will occur; Cal, stanfurd, Washinton & Oregon in the Big 10. WSU & OSU in the Mountain West & Az., ASU, Colorado & Utah in the Big 12. Only time, of course will tell.
Though in the near term there's still a pretty good chance that the remaining Pac-10 stays together for a little while.
Given that the President of the Big 10 is on the record saying that both USC and UCLA are getting "full shares" I tend to believe that over vague assertions on a football message board.sosheezy said:I understand that playoffs participation split might be handled differently- and I think the Pac12 if it stays together will adopt that model to appease UW, Oregon etc. But he (and GooBear) are saying USC is flat out getting more, which I take to be of pure media rights split. And the expanded playoff happened after the media deals were struck and the UCLA/USC admittance and revenue splits of basic media rights were agreed to.maxer said:There are essentially 3 pots of revenue for conferences:sosheezy said:Not trying to be a pill here, legitimately trying to understand the difference. All of the reporting is saying all the Big Ten teams are splitting media money equally, with Maryland/Rutgers of the world are now being elevated to equal with all the other teams, and USC/USC getting equal dollars as all the other teams. I can get that the reporting is wrong, or technically inaccurate, but can you explain how?wifeisafurd said:
I did. UCLA is not getting the same revenue as USC. Full share means different things than equal revenue.
Also, for those not following, the B1G also is likely to provide a revenue share to athletes.
Does the Big Ten split media money unequally? Which teams make more or less? How is full share different that equal revenue as you are hearing it?
1. Media rights
2. College football playoff appearance money
3. NCAA basketball tournament appearance money
(Individual athletic depts can also make money other ways, most notably by selling tickets and sponsorships).
I BELIEVE the point that WIAF is making, very obliquely as he likes to do, is that although the media rights revenue is split evenly, perhaps the playoff and NCAA tournament money will not be (aka the teams that actually appear will keep much more of it, which was not the case in the PAC. Not sure how the Big 10 does it).
Your mileage may vary though.
USC and UCLA are getting full shares and equal money as full members. It's actually irked schools like Rutgers and Maryland who came in on half rations but they'll have to grin and bear it.maxer said:Given that the President of the Big 10 is on the record saying that both USC and UCLA are getting "full shares" I tend to believe that over vague assertions on a football message board.sosheezy said:I understand that playoffs participation split might be handled differently- and I think the Pac12 if it stays together will adopt that model to appease UW, Oregon etc. But he (and GooBear) are saying USC is flat out getting more, which I take to be of pure media rights split. And the expanded playoff happened after the media deals were struck and the UCLA/USC admittance and revenue splits of basic media rights were agreed to.maxer said:There are essentially 3 pots of revenue for conferences:sosheezy said:Not trying to be a pill here, legitimately trying to understand the difference. All of the reporting is saying all the Big Ten teams are splitting media money equally, with Maryland/Rutgers of the world are now being elevated to equal with all the other teams, and USC/USC getting equal dollars as all the other teams. I can get that the reporting is wrong, or technically inaccurate, but can you explain how?wifeisafurd said:
I did. UCLA is not getting the same revenue as USC. Full share means different things than equal revenue.
Also, for those not following, the B1G also is likely to provide a revenue share to athletes.
Does the Big Ten split media money unequally? Which teams make more or less? How is full share different that equal revenue as you are hearing it?
1. Media rights
2. College football playoff appearance money
3. NCAA basketball tournament appearance money
(Individual athletic depts can also make money other ways, most notably by selling tickets and sponsorships).
I BELIEVE the point that WIAF is making, very obliquely as he likes to do, is that although the media rights revenue is split evenly, perhaps the playoff and NCAA tournament money will not be (aka the teams that actually appear will keep much more of it, which was not the case in the PAC. Not sure how the Big 10 does it).
Your mileage may vary though.
“My tastes are simple; I am easily satisfied with the best.” - Winston Churchill
UC campuses face rollback in authority after UCLA deal to leave Pac-12 irks regents https://t.co/1J8NRB5xcG
— Ben Bolch (@latbbolch) September 22, 2022
Board Chair Richard Leib emphasized the proposal is aimed at future campus actions. But it was triggered by widespread concerns among regents about the financial impact UCLA's decision to leave the Pac-12 in 2024 could have on UC Berkeley.
The Westwood campus will receive a full share of the new Big Ten media rights package that's valued at more than $1 billion per season and is expected to be multiple times that of a Pac-12 deal under negotiation.
But UC Berkeley is bracing for a multimillion-dollar loss in media revenue under a new TV contract with a Pac-12 conference diminished by the departure of UCLA and USC.
-https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-09-22/uc-campus-ucla-pac-12-big-ten
“My tastes are simple; I am easily satisfied with the best.” - Winston Churchill
Pac-12 Commissioner George Kliavkoff laid out in a letter to UC Regents why they should block UCLA’s move to the Big Ten. https://t.co/Hey2thHKR6
— Billy Witz (@billywitz) September 22, 2022
Apparently Kliavkoff laid out a case why UCLA stayng is better for them
Sum up the intersection of conference realignment, academia, and California politics in one sentence please.https://t.co/rWLfZ4CfhD pic.twitter.com/mAVIzo0gFq
— Stewart Mandel (@slmandel) September 23, 2022
The regents, as expected, did not take any action but the chair said if they blocked UCLA's move, “it would be a big deal. There would be a lot of people happy and a lot of people upset.” No matter what the regents do, he said, there could be legal action.
— Billy Witz (@billywitz) September 22, 2022
Featured Stories
See All
Cal Football Tuesday Weekly Presser
by Jim McGill
The Rodcast: It Looked Unfair
by Rod Benson
Cal Trio Earns ACC Weekly Honors
by Cal Athletics
Cal Knocks Out No. 2 Duke, Advances To ACC Semifinals
by Cal Athletics
Bears Win Crazy Affair in 46-36 Victory at Wake Forest
by Jim McGill