The implication of unequal revenue sharing is profound.
I think there are many different possibilities if the other conferences adopt unequal revenue sharing.
Yormark wanted UConn badly, but the Big 12 presidents rejected it.
Why?
Because UConn’s value doesn’t justify a full share. But what if UConn were willing to join with a PERMANENT half share? That would certainly change the calculation.
The SEC may want to enter the Virginia market, but Virginia Tech or UVA would dilute the payout. Again, unequal revenue sharing could solve the problem.
The impact of uneven revenue share might be magnified around 2030.
Let’s say the P2 shifts to a true pro model in 2030, where players no longer have to attend school. Would Vanderbilt or Northwestern stay in the pro P2 leagues while only receiving half share? If they leave, that would open up more spots.
28 Replies
S
Stech
1y
Thanks in advance.
(In response to this post by daveinop)
1y
It’s not a real uneven revenue distribution. More like a temporary difference.
Under a true uneven revenue distributuon, Purdue won’t get the same media money as Michigan or OSU.
(In response to this post by daveinop)
E
EDGEMAN
1y
But it hasn't been codified long term like the ACC just inserted. One underhanded thing the ACC is now doing is to use ND to increase the funds for a handful of programs to the detriment of everyone else. The payout is due to viewership, and giving ND games to the few is total BS.
I think the rest of the ACC schools should sue the conference for equal access to ND football games.
(In response to this post by RandomAsianGuy)
1y
will prevent a true "regulation" of the payouts.
(In response to this post by EDGEMAN)
1y
And the B1G did it with Maryland and Rutgers. UO and UW get 50% shares now, and can get some advances on future monies for travel, but that will come out of future earnings for them.
When Rutgers and UMCP joined, their shares were what their payouts were from the Big East and ACC respectively with the promise of a full share when a new contract was signed. They were also allowed to borrow up front from the B1G with the payments coming from future payouts.
The only schools to join the B1G in the past 2 expansions to receive full shares upon joining are USC and UCLA, and UCLA has to give a chunk of theirs to Cal.
(In response to this post by Stech)
S
Stech
1y
(In response to this post by mrcaniac)
S
Stech
1y
(In response to this post by daveinop)
D
daveinop
1y
Big East did it; Big 12 used to let each team sell a game for themselves; schools have their own radio deals; Texas had LHN; conferences have let bowl teams keep the money; ACC and B1G are variable distribution now...
I get that historically base funding has for the most part been evenly shared but varying payouts in one form or another isn't exactly new. ACC is simply the first to do it based on TV ratings. In a year or two someone else will have yet another model
** Edited by daveinop at 3/10/2025, 7:57:31 PM
(In response to this post by Stech)
V
VTCALS72
1y
than they are now. Maybe they would prefer to kick out more teams than they add going forward. If you are a SEC team you would fight like heck not to allow the current what 16 pieces of the pie to be divided into 17 or more pieces. And there is no team not in the P2. excepting ND that can make that 1/17th pie slice be bigger than the current 1/16th pie slice.
(In response to this post by RandomAsianGuy)
1y
They want to consolidate to just the big brands. But at the same time none of them want to be the school that has a losing season. They need the Rutgers and Maryland type schools to give them “guaranteed” wins each year within their ivory tower P2 conferences.
The narrative will change when an Ohio State or Alabama has a few 6-6 years after they no longer get to load up on some easy wins.
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
D
drb
1y
(In response to this post by HokieAl)
1y
as it was no less (and slightly more) that what is being made now. Maybe not permanently, but certainly for the foreseeable future.
(In response to this post by RandomAsianGuy)
E
EDGEMAN
1y
...that would definitely change the game. Would it be worth it for a Clemson, UNC or F$U pay to make the jump to a different conference, only to make similar levels of money?
I'm OK with unequal revenue sharing, but definitely NOT OK with it being based on the unequal sharing of ND games for a select few. Propping up their television numbers to justify paying them more is complete crap! Now if you want to reward the teams with the best ACC records with ND games the following year, that's probably acceptable. Don't initially award teams with those games based on their lawsuits. It appears that's what the ACC did here.
(In response to this post by RandomAsianGuy)
S
Stech
1y
or play Utah, Colorado, Arizona, Kansas too. Play WVU every year, but play T2’s that will do a home and home. I didn’t mention the P2’s because I think they are going to start playing each other, and they will be harder to schedule in the future. The money is in the TV ratings, good get some matchups that will get them. You can’t say you want to be in the P2, schedule easy poorly rated games. The rules have changed, stop acting like it’s B2020!
(In response to this post by EDGEMAN)
1y
on the scheduling, VT either the week before, or the week after. Hope you guys play someone cool, as I will get to knock Lane off my bucket list.
(In response to this post by Stech)
1y
If that philosophy were widely adopted it might not go well for VT.
** Edited by HokieNoVA at 3/10/2025, 9:36:12 AM
(In response to this post by Stech)
S
Stech
1y
Coach is needed. That said, I hate playing SEC teams in Atlanta, it’s another home game for them. We need them in the DMV or Charlotte if we are playing so called neutral sites that really aren’t neutral.
(In response to this post by HokieNoVA)
1y
You don’t need to be undefeated or one loss anymore in order to get a shot at the title. Scheduling has changed now that we have the expanded playoff.
And VT is very slow to react to this change. Our upcoming schedules are atrocious. This needs to change.
(In response to this post by HokieNoVA)
S
Stech
1y
Right where RFK used to be.
(In response to this post by MrFantastic!)
1y
Then what's the point of joining? That's actually actually a downgrade from the current situation.
(In response to this post by RandomAsianGuy)
1y
based on conference and/or poll standings, OOC record, bowl destinations, perceived value based on TV ratings …
(In response to this post by HokieNoVA)
E
EDGEMAN
1y
(In response to this post by HokieNoVA)