BIG makes more than SEC
- Thread starter RUTGERS95
- Start date
Not neccessarily, as the new TV contract and the expanded Playoff will earn much more revenue for the B1G. ( according to the article.)
B1g operating expenses are higher…and about to sky-rocket mainly due to travel…never look at just revenue…
Those operating expenses for travel are incurred at the school level, not the conference level .
If you're Pro SEC then you should include the playoff money since since that is where the SEC will make more per school due to less mouths.
Starting next year, USC and UCLA are already included in the new Media contract payouts. So not a new mouth to feed, that increased the overall payout. Oregon and Washington is a new mouth to feed and are at a reduced payout. It has been noted that Fo gave the OK implying that not all if any of the money going to OR and WA is coming from other B10 mouths.
On the other hand the SEC, similar to the ACC is tied to a long term contract with ESPN that goes through 2034. ESPN only gave equal shares for TX and OK since they have the main contract at a bargain. Where they will be able to make up a little of the gap is with the SEC game of the week that went up for grabs(this inclued TX and OK) and ESPN had to pay a premium for this lone game.
Expect SEC to be down 10-25Million up until 2034 unless ESPN decides to give the SEC more money for no reason at all.
SEC tried to go back to ESPN for more money last year for a 9th game, but appeared that ESPN said No.. Makes sence...... SEC has alluded ti going to 9 games in 2 years.... maybe a new window being created for more money? There was a rumor of SEC Friday night game. In any case there will be a gap until SEC can renew in 2034.
I believe B10 goes back to renew in 2030 or 2032?
Not Pro SEC at all. Big Ten added teams that doesn't have a tremendous following on TV nationwide and on the West Coast. The PAC12 folded as they couldn't get a decent TV contract simply because they can't draw eyes to the TV. USC, UCLA and Oregon top watched games in 2023 all involved the circus that Colorado brought to the media. The Big Ten media deal was struck before Washington and Oregon was added. Haven't seen how much TV money was added to the contract if any.
So USC and UCLA are covered.
Reason PAC couldn't get a media deal was because USC/UCLA were leaving and OR and WA could not support the other 8 teams. So the payout was $20-30M per school. With USC/UCLA, they might have gotten 30-40M... which is why USC UCLA left.
WA and OR at 30M to start per year
FOX gave the green light so i suspect the Big10 Media deal increased by 60M per year. But it would not have been something formally announced. With 18 schools it is possible that the other schools will just get 4 million less. But i doubt it. I suspect that there will be B10 after dark games to cover that. USC at UCLA, UCLA at Washington, Washington at Oregon, UCLA at Oregon, USC at Washington - All 5 on different weeks. Only 1 would have existed prior to adding Washington and Oregon. 1 or 2 of these games might get picked in other time slots i assume
FOX also announced Friday night B10/Big12/MW games after WWE Smackdown went to USA. LOL, as i was writing this i googled to see if games were already announced.... my suspicion was OR and WA has to accept some Friday night games. John Wilner tweeted the same
So some B10 after dark, some Friday Night BIG with OR and WA (and probably UCLA) having to accept a Friday night game.
Again prove it. Show the math. We are all guessing that the media deal was increased when Washington and Oregon were added. But there is no factual confirmation of that.
The PAC12 media issues were well before USC and UCLA left, years before. Nobody was watching.
To be clear the WhiteBus comment should be "Well going forward the payouts to the schools will be less as the Big Ten just added 2 mouths at the little kids table." Unless he believes the B10 added USC/UCLA to make less money - if that is his argument he should take that up with the Big10. it should be assumed that USC/UCLA made us MORE money. So the question is WA and OR.
WhiteBus can't prove that we are making less money with WA and OR. aside from guessing
And no one can prove we are making more. aside from assuming.
I think nothing changed for the rest of the teams.
John Wilner implied WA/OR money was coming from a Friday window.
All we know is that WA and OR are being paid 30M each and FOX gave the green light. No article has ever indicated that we are making less money or more money.
It is SAFE to assume our money distribution did not change.
Moving forward - Past 2030 when everything gets renegotiated.... does OR and WA cost us money?
IF B10 gets in a 4th Saturday window, that is how adding WA and OR pay for themselves. And I wouldn't be surprised if a 5th West Coast School is added to get a weekly 4th Saturday window vs sometimes.
And I suspect if FSU and other ACC schools get added that there will be 5 weekly primetime games vs 3 Saturday(plus some Sat and Fri nights).
Correct, but that was because 3-4 brands couldn't pay for the others.
There was an article (which i just saw 10 minutes ago - can't find it now.
the top 18 brands accounted for X % of the ratings from 2016 to 2023.
Washington / USC / and Oregon were included in addition to PSU, OSU, Michigan and Wisconsin.
SEC had 8 teams including TX and OK.
The other teams were FSU, ND and Clemson.
So we just added 3 of the top 18 teams in ratings over the past 8 years. if you do not think that they pay for themselves(especially at a reduced payout) with them taking windows that we wouldn't normally take, not sure what to say to you aside from talk to FOX executives.
Well you are off to a bad start. I wasn't talking about USC and UCLA, the two schools I was referring to were Washington and Oregon who were added after the Big Ten media deal. Secondly USC and UCLA alone were not bringing $75 million a piece to cover their share. Ratings for them have been bad for them for awhile.
Wait until USC plays…
Penn State
Oregon
Washington
Ohio State
Nebraska
Michigan
Wisconsin
Or Michigan State
With all of those Midwest and East Coast eyeballs now with a vested interest, anyone of those matchups you can put up right against the very best SEC matchups each week and that’s what Fox wants… and paid for.
Remember UCLA too. They came as a pair, in the same market. Best matchup with who? Rutgers? I think so. Even their basketball program isn't all that good.
Again where is the extra money coming for Washington and Oregon?? Not on single announcement of the Big Ten getting more money for them.
Good point about UCLA basketball. It’s been three years since they were in their last final four.
You're right they were awesome last year, 15-16.
Again you are still avoiding the question. Where is the extra money for Washington and Oregon???
Next time I would just say that you forgot that they were a final four team only three years ago. It’s a better look.
Next time answer the original question. I started with where is the extra media money for Washington and Oregon? That would be a better look. You are like Paul Finebaum when a caller asks a good question about the Big Ten over the SEC on something. Change the narrative but don't answer the question.
My man, I didn’t change the narrative. You’re the one who brought up UCLA basketball.
I trust the evaluation of the industry giants at Fox that make these decisions after copious amounts of research and data crunching. They determined that Oregon and Washington at a reduced rate, was good business and I’m sorry if that makes me want to disqualify your opinion.
But they haven't paid for Washington or Oregon even at a reduced rate. They weren't part of the media deal that is still the same amount after they were added. $1 billion a year is just under $72 million for 14 teams. Now it's 16 teams so it's $62.5 for each team. That's my point. There are other income sources but each school is taking a cut from the TV deal. Unless there is some secret deal which nobody has announced.
It was reported back then by mainstream CFB media that Fox did ante up more money (reduced rate) for Oregon and Washington. It was new money, not related to the original deal.
A quick google and I found some comments from Gene Smith on it as well.
“The original dollar figures that we had prior to Oregon and Washington coming in stayed the same for those institutions that were already in. Fox brought new money to the table for Oregon and for Washington that they provided,” Smith said during his press conference on Wednesday. “It wasn't diluted to us. The long-term play is that, hopefully, when we negotiate the next deal, that's valuable inventory. So year five or six, whenever assuming it’s Tony goes to negotiate a new deal, you have Oregon and Washington in your portfolio.”
Gene Smith Saw Additions of Oregon and Washington As “Obvious” Move After Big Ten Received “New Money” from Fox
Gene Smith said adding Oregon and Washington “became pretty obvious as something we should do” after Fox “brought new money to the table” to fund them joining the Big Ten.
At least someone found something. Congratulations but is it true? No Big Ten announcement, no Fox, CBS or NBC statements Sorry if I'm not buying into a post from a source called Eleven Warriors but at least somebody thinks so!It was reported back then by mainstream CFB media that Fox did ante up more money (reduced rate) for Oregon and Washington. It was new money, not related to the original deal.
A quick google and I found some comments from Gene Smith on it as well.
“The original dollar figures that we had prior to Oregon and Washington coming in stayed the same for those institutions that were already in. Fox brought new money to the table for Oregon and for Washington that they provided,” Smith said during his press conference on Wednesday. “It wasn't diluted to us. The long-term play is that, hopefully, when we negotiate the next deal, that's valuable inventory. So year five or six, whenever assuming it’s Tony goes to negotiate a new deal, you have Oregon and Washington in your portfolio.”
Gene Smith Saw Additions of Oregon and Washington As “Obvious” Move After Big Ten Received “New Money” from Fox
Gene Smith said adding Oregon and Washington “became pretty obvious as something we should do” after Fox “brought new money to the table” to fund them joining the Big Ten.www.elevenwarriors.com
Whitebus
I assume you would agree that TX and OK bring some value.
Google it...
Crickets on how much more the SEC is getting.
They add ZERO MONEY to the SEC teams. The contract was not renegotiated.
Using your logic, since there isn't any press release about additional money, that means Bama and Vandy are paying for TX and OK to get in.
Except that their not, because ESPN is making them whole without losing money. Just like the B10. Fox is footing the bill for the extra 60M per year.
Your asking for something that doesn't exist and then claiming we are automatically making less money.
I assume you would agree that TX and OK bring some value.
Google it...
Crickets on how much more the SEC is getting.
They add ZERO MONEY to the SEC teams. The contract was not renegotiated.
Using your logic, since there isn't any press release about additional money, that means Bama and Vandy are paying for TX and OK to get in.
Except that their not, because ESPN is making them whole without losing money. Just like the B10. Fox is footing the bill for the extra 60M per year.
Your asking for something that doesn't exist and then claiming we are automatically making less money.
Last edited:
What University President would sign off on a decision like this knowing they were going to lose money? I’ll give you a hint… none. Not trying to be a d!ck but there is no chance Holloway just decided to add teams and take a haircut to the tune of tens of millions of dollars to Rutgers University just so the TV networks can make more money at their expense.
$60 million for each team or total? That's $120 million my friend. ESPN and SEC did announce that BTW as they had to cover the costs of 2024 that neither of those two teams media rights this coming season belong to the SEC. Big 12 still has that. They made the deal to get them in a year early. Of course the start of the new playoff deal.
It kind of is. The BIG and SEC are guaranteed a much larger % of playoff revenue reguardless of
Are actually arguing that the conference took in teams to make less money?
Ask Pete Hamel
This is nearly a year after the deal was announced
"These deals aren't done, and they aren't what they were represented to be from the standpoint of the NBC deal and the availability of all members to participate in November games in primetime," said an industry source.
Interviews with nearly a dozen sources in and around the Big Ten and the college sports industry paint a picture of Petitti sprinting to navigate details left unresolved from his predecessor.
As a result, there's a trail of unhappy athletic directors seeing money disappearing from their bottom line, frustrated television executives and big-name coaches irked about the lack of transparency in details that weren't communicated to them."
It’s an OSU site but who cares about the site, it’s the quote from Gene Smith that’s important.
Like I said mainstream CFB media reported it back then but I purposely chose a source that had a quote from someone within the conference. You’re not getting a better source than the OSU AD.
For this if I recall Penn State and one of the Michigans agreed to to something... and I think there was something else
I believe the issue was that Warren verbally gave CBS and/or NBC a B10 championship game that technically belonged to FOX.
So some high power athletic directors were pissed off that they were going to conceed to something to make it right. Like PSU playing a Friday game or some ****.
I gave 2 links for that.
30M each. Yearly increases of 1M each.
And John Wilner alluded to it by implying FOX was going to pay for it by making WA and OR having to play on Fridays.
So in 2030 if for example Rutgers is making 80M off of B10 Media Rights excluding CFP, Oregon will be making around 36M .
In 2031 starts new contract where I assume Oregon will jump to equal shares.
I dunno.. does it really cost that much more to travel to California rather than Minnesota? We'll play the same number of road games either way.. mostly.. maybe 1 more.
Hmm.. hotel costs in major metros will be more.. I assume.
Hopefully its at least a wash with increased ad dollars with more eyeballs in major markets. national level advertisers may replace regional ones for more revenue.