Funny little Big 12 dreamers. Living in KC, I of course listen to the local
- Thread starter Wintereisse
- Start date
@iclone will be watching his team playing for MAC in 5 years
Have fun watching your team play in the MAC in 5 years lol.
I'm not quite sure where the $50 million comes from for BTN revenue. But, he isn't far off. Big Ten schools are about to skyrocket in revenue in 2018. For full members, first tier revenue is going to explode from $9 million in 2015 to $35 million per school in 2018. You add up all other revenue, and that is well over $50 million per full member in 2018. Maybe that is what bomber meant. Here is a link:
http://awfulannouncing.com/2016/big...ia-revenues-skyrocket-thanks-new-tv-deal.html
He was right about the number but not from the BIG network alone. 35 million goes to each school for the TV deals the BIG has in place, 12.5 million from the BIG etc.
Here's a link for the curious http://awfulannouncing.com/2016/big...ia-revenues-skyrocket-thanks-new-tv-deal.html
THIS, I was just coming of age during the run, in a perfect world Nebraska would still be running the option and battling it out with more local universities. Loved the old Big 8, it was perfection. Don't miss the Big 12 at all. Way better situation in the Big Ten, obviously.
I disagree. Moving to the BIG was the long-term play from a stability and financial standpoint for Nebraska.
Staying in the B12 would have been the easy thing to do, but would have been the short sighted move for the university.
The conferences are not run similarly.
No teams will be returning to the B12.
Last edited:
No they've moved on to bigger fish, like Houston, Colorado State, Memphis and a Directional State U from Florida. They wouldn't have room for Nebraska. Since we've left, they have done nothing but flourish.
This was absolutely about stability and money, and the football program will likely never be what it once was..
All the tradition and past identity has been stripped, with the only remaining identity we have now, is the last few years in the B1G as big losers.
Also, remember that in the B1G, there is no incentive.. because everyone shares equally in the revenue, the 'smart' teams spend just enough to stay competitive and collect their windfall. It may not feel like it yet, but in time, I believe the move to the B1G will be seen as the nail in the coffin for Nebraska football.
I'd go back to the B12 in a heartbeat, but understand why others would not.
Furthermore, and this makes me angry, but the administrators that put us here, did so with no realistic way out. We are stuck.
Last edited:
does anyone really think the Big 8 would still be in existence in today's college football world?
We are much better off in the BIG than the Big 12 but the Big 8 as we knew it was obsolete long, long ago. The Big 8 expanding with the Texas schools was actually revolutionary and well ahead of the curve in the college football world (it was like buying Apple stock in 1980). We added 2 massive programs in Texas and Texas A+M - programs that every conference have on their wish list.
The problem wasn't the Big 8 becoming the Big 12 -- that needed to occur for the Big 8 members to remain viable long term - the problem was how the conference was managed once in existence.
To say we wish we were back in the Big 8 is like saying that we wish we lived back in the horse and buggy days.
I believe the real money to be made in the Big 10 is R&D. Football is just a side bet. The benefits to moving to the Big 10 are way beyond athletics.
We have only been in the BIG for five years. I personally see more rivalries developing here over time then the Huskers had in the Big 12. We baby boomers are going away. The next generation will not remember the Big 8 or 12. They will remember the Wisconsin's, M State and yes even Iowa's. I personally love the Wisc. & MSU possibilities. The only thing I miss is Oklahoma.
This argument doesn't really hold water for me. If it did, tOSU, Michigan State, Michigan wouldn't be doing what they are doing right now, since the incentive isn't there.
If the right coach shows up (hoping its Riley, but could be someone else), we will be just fine. No nails in this coffin yet as far as I'm concerned.
it is not solely based on incentive and remember that tOSU, Michigan State, & Michigan have all of their previous traditions and identity intact as they haven't jumped to another conference.
In order to be higher on the totem pole, you have to take marketshare from one of those programs, and having our identity stripped away and the results these last few years doesn't inspire much if any confidence. Fans expectations are in decline, the trajectory is down, we could easily become like a Minnesota.. a team that previously was dominant and won national championships and now hasn't been a factor in a very long time.
In fact, that's exactly where we are.
I am with you Red. There was no future in the Big 12. It was a marriage gone bad. Remember the good times but look to the future aka Big 10. Hell we had a rivalry with Okie only cuz we were competitive against them. We need to make our own Big 10 rivals by being competitive against the best in the league.
The future looks brighter in the Big 10.
You are right about where we are now, but I'm not convinced we will stay there. Riley and co. seem to be doing a great job marketing the university so our blue blood identity can easily come back. Are we a power run team? No, that identity has been stripped away, but not because of the conference change. It happened due to a coaching change. If it doesn't work, we will get a new coach.
i just don't agree that we are on a downward trajectory and will never reach for championships again. Maybe I'm misinterpreting your post, but the nail in the coffin analogy paints a pretty bleak picture, much bleaker than I am willing to paint at this time.
Winning nothing of substance is winning nothing of substance regardless of what conference you're part of.
Putting zero hardware in the trophy case was our hallmark during most of our time in the B12 and has continued during our time in the BIG.
Callahan won zero championships. Pelini won zero. Riley is 0/1.
Yes, I understand that Nebraska and Texas formed an alliance in the early days of the Big 12 in order to stop equal revenue sharing.
this is true.. we stopped winning a long time ago..
I guess all I am saying is, at one time, we had a winning formula, and every step we take away from that formula just seems foolish to me.
We finally get a full cut of the B1G payout in 2017. Why would go back to the Big Hate er 12.
You do realize that we get a full cut of the B1G revenue next year and it will be much greater than anything the Big XII could ever offer.
Absolutely Nebraska is making more money in Big 10-4. Huskers do not have a fan base that could support and make financially viable Tier 3 programming of their own like the Longhorn Network which would allow them to match or exceed.
But this narrative that it was Texas alone that made life miserable in the old Big 12 is false. Texas, Nebraska, OU and A&M all opposed revenue sharing and getting along.
We should have been getting a bigger cut all along.. we had morons negotiating for us.. look at how the latest additions to the conference made out. We got a crappy deal and even Harvey basically admitted that.
We haven't made any more money the last 4 years.. we are still getting paid 2012 Big12 money, with a slight bump. It is not based on what the Big12 made in any current year, it's in arrears.
So that is why Nebraska ultimately left the conference after 2010?
Today everyone in the conference still bows down to Texas except Oklahoma. Texas made the atmosphere in the conference so toxic that Colorado, Nebraska, Missouri, and Texas A@M decided to leave for better opportunities which involved revenue sharing for all 4 schools in their new conference.
The only schools that could actually leave the Big 12 on their own right now and find a home without having to ride the coattails of another school are Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas. You better quit living in the past and continue to do everything Texas and Oklahoma wants or kiss membership in a Power 5 Conference goodbye.
Disagree 100%. I like the way this program is trending. Hell we were competitive in the first year with a new coach, new system, and partial buy in by some players.
A person has to guard against being a charter member a CAVE club. "Citizens Against Virtually Everything."
The deal that NU got was that we would receive about the same amount that we would have received if we stayed in the big 12. That is the same deal that Rutgers got (they are receiving about $10M per year). Maryland is receiving more initially because it had a huge exit penalty to pay, but according to Delaney its payout will average out eventually to the same formula.
I don't recall Harvey saying that. Can you point me to where I can read that?
This move wasn't about the last 4 years, it was about the next 25.
I totally disagree with both points. I feel more at home in the B1G than I ever did in the Big XII. Nebraska's success was resented by everyone as the big XII was formed and all on those 11-1 votes were to insure it wouldn't last. Go back and look at the final AP poll from 1996, you can see the damage that those votes did to the big XII north teams.
That was short term thinking, not Nebraska moving up to the B1G.
Could not disagree more, listen to your argument, it had very little to do with football and everything to do with revenue. "Viable long term" is probably one of the least sexy phrases in the English language. Horse and buggy days? Nebraska in the Big 8 was a force and the quality of FOOTBALL was light years ahead of what Nebraska is now in the Big 10. I get everything is about money, but the Nebraska Football product was way better and that is what I said I missed. I was talking football and you were talking business I think, and yes I get they are inextricably linked but hot damn horse and buggy days? We were blowing peoples doors off.
Iowa fan here, I have a question about the Big 8: Other than Oklahoma, did you guys have any decent rivalries? I thought Nebraska and Oklahoma pretty much dominated the remaining Big 8 teams...
Colorado won a national title in the Big 8. I believe Nebraska, OU, and Colorado finished 1,2 and 3 in the final poll in '72. Hard to imagine this given the current state of Colorado football.
In the Big 8, it was always Nebraska, Oklahoma and usually a third good team. Sometimes even a bonus fourth team.
Like Colorado. Or misery. Or Oklahoma St had some good teams. And K State was starting to emerge at the end.
That said, there was no way Big 8 would survive the modern era of super conferences and mega contracts, etc
Nebraska made the right move for a number of reasons and almost nobody wants to go back at this point. Snyder is one step closer to the old folks home babbling nonsense.
Like Colorado. Or misery. Or Oklahoma St had some good teams. And K State was starting to emerge at the end.
That said, there was no way Big 8 would survive the modern era of super conferences and mega contracts, etc
Nebraska made the right move for a number of reasons and almost nobody wants to go back at this point. Snyder is one step closer to the old folks home babbling nonsense.
I'm not finding the article that I wanted, but there is some of it here:
http://espn.go.com/college-football...ncaa-conference-realignments-begin-take-shape
and
http://maryland.247sports.com/Bolt/...-Big-Ten-Payment-Ever-in-Rookie-Year-43637545
Basically, he blamed our deal on a lack of leverage and a small tv market etc. I'm not buying that.. to say that the Maryland athletics tv market is bigger than ours. Sure, there may be more tv sets in that area, but I highly doubt one could say with a straight face that there will be more viewers on any given Saturday to watch a Maryland football game vs. a Nebraska football game.
He's trying to explain or justify why our deal was as low as it was saying he was negotiating from a weak position.
If I can find the more recent article, I will post it, but he says basically that the reason we got the deal we did is because things were different back then in 2010 and again that we were negotiating from a weak position. You can believe what you like, but I'm positive it was Harvey that was the weak position, and not Nebraska football, our brand, or our leverage position.
Some key quotes:
"For this past year, the school received about $16 million from the Big Ten, whereas other Big Ten schools received about $27.5 million each. Nebraska received $15.4 million the year before. At the same time, Nebraska's former conference colleagues in the Big 12 saw an average of $21 million. "
"At the time we entered the Big Ten there was a realistic possibility that Nebraska would be without a conference. It isn't as though we came with a lot of leverage," he said, noting that at the time the Big 12 was on the verge of implosion. "We didn't bring a lot of TV sets or people. We brought a strong athletic tradition. We brought a strong academic tradition."
"Maryland was in a position of financial despair -- but also, bargaining leverage-- when it joined the Big Ten in 2012, as illustrated by a Omaha.com report contrasting Maryland's initial conference payout to Nebraska's shares.
Maryland received $36.1 million from the conference in 2014-2015, its rookie season in the conference -- $4 million more than the league's longstanding members,nearly twice as much as Nebraska and the highest payout any school's ever receiver from the conference, per the report. Some of that discrepancy is due to the front-loaded deal the school received to ease the burden of its $31 million payout to the ACC, along with a portion of the $20-to-$30 million travel subsidy the conference agreed to provide. Maryland's $24.5 million base payment was still 33 percent more than the Cornhuskers received in the fourth season as Big Ten members and $14 million more than fellow newcomer Rutgers received, the reports says."
“There was a considerable difference in negotiating leverage between Nebraska and Maryland,” Nebraska Chancellor Harvey Perlman told the site. “While we brought a better athletic reputation, they brought considerably more financial opportunity for the conference — opportunity that Nebraska will share in the years ahead.”
"
How much money is Rutgers getting from the Big Ten and what it means?
By Keith Sargeant | NJ Advance Media for NJ.com The Star-Ledger
on January 28, 2016 at 6:30 AM,
PISCATAWAY — It was a question that has lingered over the Rutgers athletics department since Nov. 20, 2012, the day the university formally accepted an invitation to join the Big Ten Conference.
How much money would Rutgers receive from the Big Ten in its first year of membership?
By now, you've heard all about the six-year integration plan that Rutgers and the other new Big Ten members — Nebraska and Maryland — have to go through before they become full financial partners with the other 11 schools.
We've also heard various financial estimates that have put Rutgers' first full-share check at anywhere between $30 million and $45 million. Rutgers' distribution share is projected to go up gradually each year between now and July 2021, but what is the starting point?
Both Big Ten and Rutgers officials have declined to specify that amount when pressed on that question over the past three-plus years.
Sure, there were a few hints. In February 2014, several media outlets, including The Star-Ledger, obtained an internal financial projections document that reported Rutgers' projected revenue from the Big Ten at just over $10 million for its first season. Four months later, university President Robert Barchi told Gannett NJ in a June 2014 interview: "We are expecting at a minimum of something in the neighborhood of $9 and $9.5 million (in conference-distribution revenue) in Year 1.''
As for Jim Delany, the Big Ten Commissioner told The Star-Ledger after Rutgers defected the Big East and joined the Big Ten: "What will happen is, in six years (from 2014-15), everyone who comes in — whether it was Nebraska, Rutgers or Maryland — will be in the same place. But in the transition they're all a little bit different. They will be made (financially) whole at a certain time. Everybody's different because everybody is coming from a different place.''
The Big Ten's goal, Delany told NJ Advance Media last October, was "to keep our (traditional) institutions whole, to keep the (new) institutions coming in whole relative to where they were, and then at a certain point in time they'll become a full member of the conference.''
Essentially, Rutgers' Year 1 check from the Big Ten is the same figure that the university would've received had it remained in the old Big East.
In its final season in the Big East (2012-13), Rutgers received a check for $9.5 million as its conference distribution, according to the school's Fiscal Year 2013 report filed to the NCAA. The year prior Rutgers' conference distribution was $9.7 million.
Those two figures are important to note as Rutgers fans digest the school's Year 1 Big Ten distribution: $9.4 million.
"If you look at the level of support Nebraska had in their old conference, the level of support that Maryland had in their old conference, you should be able to see that for us (the $9.4 million Big Ten check) is really (what) the old Big East (distributed),'' said Janine Purcaro, Rutgers athletics chief financial officer. "When we negotiated in, it was at the level of support from the old Big East — not the one year in the American Athletic that declined.''
Nebraska — which doesn't receive its first full-revenue share until 2018 — received $17.5 million from the Big Ten following its first season, according to the school's 2012 financial report obtained by NJ Advance Media. Maryland's 2015 athletics ledger is expected to reveal that the program received more than three times the amount that Rutgers drew following its first Big Ten campaign.
But if you think that Nebraska and Maryland cut better deals than Rutgers when they negotiated their way into the Big Ten, think again.
"This will be the first year that people look at the three schools next to each other and (ask) who's getting what? And so I think it's an important side note to know that the premise was to keep each of the new schools in the conference at the level of support that they had in their previous conference so that they didn't take a back step in terms of support,'' said Purcaro, who assisted in the Rutgers-Big Ten negotiation meetings in the fall of 2012.
According to a DailyPress.com report in June 2015, Maryland was set to receive $18 million in its final year of ACC membership (the money was withheld as part of a court settlement over the university's defection to the Big Ten). The report also listed Maryland's fee to exit the ACC at approximately $31 million.
"When you look at Maryland, people are going to say, 'Whoa, Maryland got a huge amount of money.' They're borrowing from their future,'' Purcaro said. "They had a huge exit fee, so for them to make the change in conference they had a huge nut to pay. Not that $11.5 million (Rutgers' exit fee from the Big East/AAC) isn't a large nut, but they had $50 million (owed to the ACC) plus a lot of unrest in their fan base in terms of making the switch.
"So they are doing what we are not doing. We are not borrowing from our future revenues from the Big Ten. We're trying to hold the line, get through our integration period. Use some of the increased revenues that we have from the other positive impacts in the Big Ten to get us to where we need to be.''
Whatever the full-share distribution is in July 2021 — possibly $40 million-plus — Rutgers will rake in the entire amount. Maryland won't.
"Maryland, when they get to that final end of the integration period when we do in 2021, their check is not going to be the same check that we get,'' Purcaro said. "They're not going to have the increased check because they're going to have payback from all of these years that they're borrowing forward.
"We're not doing that. That's why their number is going to look so much bigger. They didn't negotiate a better deal.''
By Keith Sargeant | NJ Advance Media for NJ.com The Star-Ledger
on January 28, 2016 at 6:30 AM,
PISCATAWAY — It was a question that has lingered over the Rutgers athletics department since Nov. 20, 2012, the day the university formally accepted an invitation to join the Big Ten Conference.
How much money would Rutgers receive from the Big Ten in its first year of membership?
By now, you've heard all about the six-year integration plan that Rutgers and the other new Big Ten members — Nebraska and Maryland — have to go through before they become full financial partners with the other 11 schools.
We've also heard various financial estimates that have put Rutgers' first full-share check at anywhere between $30 million and $45 million. Rutgers' distribution share is projected to go up gradually each year between now and July 2021, but what is the starting point?
Both Big Ten and Rutgers officials have declined to specify that amount when pressed on that question over the past three-plus years.
Sure, there were a few hints. In February 2014, several media outlets, including The Star-Ledger, obtained an internal financial projections document that reported Rutgers' projected revenue from the Big Ten at just over $10 million for its first season. Four months later, university President Robert Barchi told Gannett NJ in a June 2014 interview: "We are expecting at a minimum of something in the neighborhood of $9 and $9.5 million (in conference-distribution revenue) in Year 1.''
As for Jim Delany, the Big Ten Commissioner told The Star-Ledger after Rutgers defected the Big East and joined the Big Ten: "What will happen is, in six years (from 2014-15), everyone who comes in — whether it was Nebraska, Rutgers or Maryland — will be in the same place. But in the transition they're all a little bit different. They will be made (financially) whole at a certain time. Everybody's different because everybody is coming from a different place.''
The Big Ten's goal, Delany told NJ Advance Media last October, was "to keep our (traditional) institutions whole, to keep the (new) institutions coming in whole relative to where they were, and then at a certain point in time they'll become a full member of the conference.''
Essentially, Rutgers' Year 1 check from the Big Ten is the same figure that the university would've received had it remained in the old Big East.
In its final season in the Big East (2012-13), Rutgers received a check for $9.5 million as its conference distribution, according to the school's Fiscal Year 2013 report filed to the NCAA. The year prior Rutgers' conference distribution was $9.7 million.
Those two figures are important to note as Rutgers fans digest the school's Year 1 Big Ten distribution: $9.4 million.
"If you look at the level of support Nebraska had in their old conference, the level of support that Maryland had in their old conference, you should be able to see that for us (the $9.4 million Big Ten check) is really (what) the old Big East (distributed),'' said Janine Purcaro, Rutgers athletics chief financial officer. "When we negotiated in, it was at the level of support from the old Big East — not the one year in the American Athletic that declined.''
Nebraska — which doesn't receive its first full-revenue share until 2018 — received $17.5 million from the Big Ten following its first season, according to the school's 2012 financial report obtained by NJ Advance Media. Maryland's 2015 athletics ledger is expected to reveal that the program received more than three times the amount that Rutgers drew following its first Big Ten campaign.
But if you think that Nebraska and Maryland cut better deals than Rutgers when they negotiated their way into the Big Ten, think again.
"This will be the first year that people look at the three schools next to each other and (ask) who's getting what? And so I think it's an important side note to know that the premise was to keep each of the new schools in the conference at the level of support that they had in their previous conference so that they didn't take a back step in terms of support,'' said Purcaro, who assisted in the Rutgers-Big Ten negotiation meetings in the fall of 2012.
According to a DailyPress.com report in June 2015, Maryland was set to receive $18 million in its final year of ACC membership (the money was withheld as part of a court settlement over the university's defection to the Big Ten). The report also listed Maryland's fee to exit the ACC at approximately $31 million.
"When you look at Maryland, people are going to say, 'Whoa, Maryland got a huge amount of money.' They're borrowing from their future,'' Purcaro said. "They had a huge exit fee, so for them to make the change in conference they had a huge nut to pay. Not that $11.5 million (Rutgers' exit fee from the Big East/AAC) isn't a large nut, but they had $50 million (owed to the ACC) plus a lot of unrest in their fan base in terms of making the switch.
"So they are doing what we are not doing. We are not borrowing from our future revenues from the Big Ten. We're trying to hold the line, get through our integration period. Use some of the increased revenues that we have from the other positive impacts in the Big Ten to get us to where we need to be.''
Whatever the full-share distribution is in July 2021 — possibly $40 million-plus — Rutgers will rake in the entire amount. Maryland won't.
"Maryland, when they get to that final end of the integration period when we do in 2021, their check is not going to be the same check that we get,'' Purcaro said. "They're not going to have the increased check because they're going to have payback from all of these years that they're borrowing forward.
"We're not doing that. That's why their number is going to look so much bigger. They didn't negotiate a better deal.''
Bingo. Our membership in the CIC drives hundreds of millions of research dollars to NU (from an $8 billion annual pool), far exceeding the financial impact of joining the conference for athletics.
This never gets discussed when people talk about conference realignment, even by smart men like Snyder, but no sane NU President would ever steer us away from the B1G willingly.
