What move to B1G has meant for NU

Top_Gun_

Junior
Feb 22, 2019
1,995
2,239
113
Pretty comprehensive write-up by our buddy Mitch Sherman (link for subscribers) yesterday in The Athletic. Couple things stood out to me:



and 'The Huskers’ recruiting budget in football jumped from $478,554 in 2010-11 to $1.25 million in 2017-18.'

I know some on here still are loathe to admit the change has been a boon for NU, but it seems pretty clear to me this was a great move & can only get better with on-field success in football/hoops.

GBR
 

jlb321

Recruiting Coordinator
Aug 8, 2014
6,929
7,824
113
The money across all conferences has increased but we are making more in the big than the big 12.

It also shows that winning doesn’t really matter - you can go 4-8 in consecutive years and still cash huge conference welfare checks.

Interested in people’s thoughts on whether conference payouts should be tiered and tied to on field performance.
 

Redondo

Sophomore
Oct 7, 2012
1,112
727
113
The money across all conferences has increased but we are making more in the big than the big 12.

It also shows that winning doesn’t really matter - you can go 4-8 in consecutive years and still cash huge conference welfare checks.

Interested in people’s thoughts on whether conference payouts should be tiered and tied to on field performance.
I don't think they should. all teams play games with each others and all have winners and losers in the entire conference. Without both winners and losers, there would be no game. If no game, no money for anyone. So, they all share equally in the Big 10, unlike the differentials in the big 12, at least, that used to be. I don't know about now

That is what is wrong with major league baseball, IMO. The big market teams (aka ny) just buy up the best players who were developed by the small markets teams (aka kc) because of their clout. That's why ny teams have so many world series trophys over so many decades.

Realize that in order to have a league and keep playing games, there must be some kind of equity among all teams.

How did you feel about it when texASS was taking a bigger share of the entire pie in the big 12? or when nu didn't get its full share in the big 10?

In order to keep putting out entertaining competition, there must be equity in revenue, otherwise, it would just be boring by knowing who was going to win the conference championship every year and people would quit watching most of the games. besides, these universities are still listed as non profit institutions.
 

Top_Gun_

Junior
Feb 22, 2019
1,995
2,239
113
I don't think they should. all teams play games with each others and all have winners and losers in the entire conference. Without both winners and losers, there would be no game. If no game, no money for anyone. So, they all share equally in the Big 10, unlike the differentials in the big 12, at least, that used to be. I don't know about now

That is what is wrong with major league baseball, IMO. The big market teams (aka ny) just buy up the best players who were developed by the small markets teams (aka kc) because of their clout. That's why ny teams have so many world series trophys over so many decades.

Realize that in order to have a league and keep playing games, there must be some kind of equity among all teams.

How did you feel about it when texASS was taking a bigger share of the entire pie in the big 12? or when nu didn't get its full share in the big 10?

In order to keep putting out entertaining competition, there must be equity in revenue, otherwise, it would just be boring by knowing who was going to win the conference championship every year and people would quit watching most of the games. besides, these universities are still listed as non profit institutions.
Since revenue sharing began after the 1996 season in MLB, the Yankees have 2 titles, just 1 more than the Royals. So, it's what used to be wrong with MLB, no doubt.

The point: revenue sharing does help level the playing field and make the product better as a whole. I agree & don't think it should be determined by on-field performance.
 

timnsun

Assistant Head Coach
Jan 25, 2008
9,545
10,999
113
The money across all conferences has increased but we are making more in the big than the big 12.

It also shows that winning doesn’t really matter - you can go 4-8 in consecutive years and still cash huge conference welfare checks.

Interested in people’s thoughts on whether conference payouts should be tiered and tied to on field performance.
I think it would be a bad idea, if for no other reason, you are making it even easier for the top tier teams to maintain their success and harder for the lower tier teams to achieve success.

Pay them for games played, not for their record. Seeing the same team(s) win year after year isn’t good for CFB.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WuTang_Husker

Hawkdiver

Newbie
Jun 27, 2019
29
31
13
I think if you start breaking it down by wins/losses or games played the big losers in the equation would be the programs like Iowa and Nebraska. Given the checks from the BIG are not football and basketball checks but rather athletic department checks. To base it off anything around games played the rich (OSU) get richer based on the number of sports offered and as a result the number of wins for the school. Iowa and Nebraska both have 22 teams whereas Michigan has 27 and OSU has 35. I prefer the equal split or we would be at the bottom of the money train.

In the old Big Ten days the conference took all of the bowl money teams made and divided each bowl payment by 11. Each team received 1/11 of the bowl money and the team that played in the bowl got an extra share. This kept the money somewhat equal but did include a bonus for the team that earned the money. I am not sure if they still do this but it does work towards parity while still rewarding the teams that earn the victories. I think this is a great way of handling it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: timnsun

timnsun

Assistant Head Coach
Jan 25, 2008
9,545
10,999
113
I think if you start breaking it down by wins/losses or games played the big losers in the equation would be the programs like Iowa and Nebraska. Given the checks from the BIG are not football and basketball checks but rather athletic department checks. To base it off anything around games played the rich (OSU) get richer based on the number of sports offered and as a result the number of wins for the school. Iowa and Nebraska both have 22 teams whereas Michigan has 27 and OSU has 35. I prefer the equal split or we would be at the bottom of the money train.

In the old Big Ten days the conference took all of the bowl money teams made and divided each bowl payment by 11. Each team received 1/11 of the bowl money and the team that played in the bowl got an extra share. This kept the money somewhat equal but did include a bonus for the team that earned the money. I am not sure if they still do this but it does work towards parity while still rewarding the teams that earn the victories. I think this is a great way of handling it.
Great post!
 

Cornicator

Nebraska Legend
Gold Member
Feb 27, 2009
40,118
113,265
113
54
Meadville
That is what is wrong with major league baseball, IMO. The big market teams (aka ny) just buy up the best players who were developed by the small markets teams (aka kc) because of their clout. That's why ny teams have so many world series trophys over so many decades.

Realize that in order to have a league and keep playing games, there must be some kind of equity among all teams.
2005 Called. It wants its rant back. Major League Baseball now shares revenue, and its current business model has given every team the ability to compete.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Baxter48

RedCap

Nebraska Legend
Sep 29, 2001
71,417
14,378
113
The money across all conferences has increased but we are making more in the big than the big 12.

It also shows that winning doesn’t really matter - you can go 4-8 in consecutive years and still cash huge conference welfare checks.

Interested in people’s thoughts on whether conference payouts should be tiered and tied to on field performance.
Conference payouts absolutely should NOT be tied to win-loss record. That would mean the bottom dwellers have little or no chance of catching up with the elite teams.
 
  • Like
Reactions: timnsun

jlb321

Recruiting Coordinator
Aug 8, 2014
6,929
7,824
113
Man - you change a few key words in many of these posts and they are extremely compelling arguments for full on societal socialism.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Yossarian23

Redondo

Sophomore
Oct 7, 2012
1,112
727
113
2005 Called. It wants its rant back. Major League Baseball now shares revenue, and its current business model has given every team the ability to compete.
Me not knowing that just kind of helps prove my point. MLB MUST have seen they HAD to do something about it. The way it used to be is why I quit caring, and quit watching, because of what it was before, apparently, 1996 or 2005 or whenever. I just got tired of it and quit MLB and will never go back to watching. IMO that is what would happen over time if college sports went to bonus money for best records.

Does ny still go over salary caps o whatever they call it or do with it?
 
Last edited:

timnsun

Assistant Head Coach
Jan 25, 2008
9,545
10,999
113
Man - you change a few key words in many of these posts and they are extremely compelling arguments for full on societal socialism.
I know what it looks like, and hard to argue against your point… Where do you come down on this issue? I’d be curious to know your thoughts as well…
 
  • Like
Reactions: artist3 and jlb321

mkbrkloster

Junior
Jan 27, 2005
1,846
649
113
Me not knowing that just kind of helps prove my point. The way it used to be is why I quit caring, and quit watching, because of what it was before, apparently, 1996 or 2005 or whenever. I just got tired of it and quit MLB and will never go back to watching. IMO that is what would happen over time if college sports went to bonus money for best records.

Does ny still go over salary caps o whatever they call it or do with it?
Not all revenue is shared.
In Major League Baseball, 48% of local revenues are subject to revenue sharing and are distributed equally among all 30 teams, with each team receiving 3.3% of the total sum generated.
MLB has a luxury tax, not a salary cap. Only 2 teams paid a luxury tax last year, Nationals and Red Sox.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Top_Gun_

Redondo

Sophomore
Oct 7, 2012
1,112
727
113
Man - you change a few key words in many of these posts and they are extremely compelling arguments for full on societal socialism.
Not really. That's why they are called leagues. There needs to be legitimate competition or the leagues wouldn't survive.

That's why there are such strict rules against gambling, or even the appearance of it, in sports (e.g. Pete Rose), because the appearance of outside influences taints the product's legitimacy so easily. That's one big reason the NCAA was formed in the first place--to help ensure an even playing field, so to speak--at least theoretically.

Different business model than what is, generally, in the capitalist corporate system. If all the weaker competition is just smashed, there wouldn't be enough teams left to have any interest in watching, fandom, loyalty, etc.
 

jlb321

Recruiting Coordinator
Aug 8, 2014
6,929
7,824
113
I know what it looks like, and hard to argue against your point… Where do you come down on this issue? I’d be curious to know your thoughts as well…
I think there should be a bit of separation between the elite and non elite in football and much less separation between the elite and non elite in society.

I am hoping we start pulling our weight in this conference in the coming years as far as on field and an court results are concerned.

I do find it interesting that so many are in favor of completely equal sharing when I believe much of our storied history and blue blood status was obtained as a member of the “haves” and with the exception of Oklahoma beating up on the “have nots”.
(Perhaps this perception is wrong as I’m not entirely sure of the revenue structure of the big 8)
 

jlb321

Recruiting Coordinator
Aug 8, 2014
6,929
7,824
113
In no way is this socialism. These are all franchises in the same corporation.

Socialism would be telling the NFL they have to give part of their revenue to the NHL.
Great - then the corporation should have given a memo to Purdue and Iowa the last couple of years to lay down for Ohio State for the common good of the corporation.

For the same reasons whomever is the lower ranked team in the conf championship game should roll over. The corporation should do whatever it takes to get one of our “franchises” in the playoff.
 
Last edited:

timnsun

Assistant Head Coach
Jan 25, 2008
9,545
10,999
113
Great - then the corporation should have given a memo to Purdue and Iowa the last couple of years to lay down for Ohio State for the common good of the corporation.

For the same reasons whomever is the lower ranked team in the conf championship game should roll over. The corporation should do whatever it takes to get one of our “franchises” in the playoff.
Or the corporation could encourage improvement in all departments to strengthen the whole organization...

We can play this game for quite a while I guess...
 

Redondo

Sophomore
Oct 7, 2012
1,112
727
113
I think there should be a bit of separation between the elite and non elite in football and much less separation between the elite and non elite in society.

I am hoping we start pulling our weight in this conference in the coming years as far as on field and an court results are concerned.

I do find it interesting that so many are in favor of completely equal sharing when I believe much of our storied history and blue blood status was obtained as a member of the “haves” and with the exception of Oklahoma beating up on the “have nots”.
(Perhaps this perception is wrong as I’m not entirely sure of the revenue structure of the big 8)
But, who should or could decide any of the degrees of separation? No decisions would be perceived as equitable and fair to even close to everyone and any definition of haves and have nots would be subjective and biased depending on one's points of view.

No system would be perfect. That is why there has always been strong debates regarding the polls/bowl system, the next step which was the precursor to the bcs, whatever that was , and the current playoff system, which is still under great debate. Everything is flawed in some way depending on viewpoint and whichever ax is being ground

Also, looking back at the last 18 years, could we really say NU has been a have for almost a generation?
 
Last edited:

redfanusa

First Team All-Big Ten
Feb 6, 2009
3,848
2,364
113
I will always miss the Big Eight Conference. Nothing will change that. We had four rivals within a few hours' drive. I didn't miss a game at Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, or Missouri for a decade. Now most of the conference opponents are accessible by air only. And thanks to over-expansion, we won't see some of them but a few times a decade.

The price of escaping the dysfunctional Texas Twelve was high. I'm glad Nebraska bailed out of that shitshow to the Big Ten. But it isn't the same. In fact, the huge influx of money has negatively impacted college football in general. It is much less about amateur athletes playing for their schools, and much more about grabbing every available $$$ from advertising, merchandise, TV rights, etc.

This message brought to you by the racing Pepsi bottles.
 

BartonHusker

Walk On
Nov 6, 2004
249
424
63
I don’t miss the Big XII, I miss the Big 8.

With that said I love being in the B1G now. Not just from a finical aspect but I like the make-up of the B1G West. In a perfect world KU and OU were in the B1G as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: scarletred

bshirt73

Senior
Aug 31, 2014
2,537
1,517
113
I don’t miss the Big XII, I miss the Big 8.

With that said I love being in the B1G now. Not just from a finical aspect but I like the make-up of the B1G West. In a perfect world KU and OU were in the B1G as well.
Exactly. I too miss the Big8 but I miss the BigXII like another hole in my head. Texass knows how to destroy conferences to be sure.

Yes sir, the Big10 is simply excellent!
 

Crazyhole

Junior
Jun 4, 2004
1,763
2,469
113
If Texas had put their Energy and resources into building a Nationwide network for the whole conference instead of the Longhorn network then the big12 could have been right up there with the sec and B1G. Instead of being greedy and selfish they could have pushed the first round of expansion and drawn in teams like the Big10 did.
 
  • Like
Reactions: scarletred

Blackshirt316

All-American
Jan 17, 2007
4,230
563
113
But, who should or could decide any of the degrees of separation? No decisions would be perceived as equitable and fair to even close to everyone and any definition of haves and have nots would be subjective and biased depending on one's points of view.

No system would be perfect. That is why there has always been strong debates regarding the polls/bowl system, the next step which was the precursor to the bcs, whatever that was , and the current playoff system, which is still under great debate. Everything is flawed in some way depending on viewpoint and whichever ax is being ground

Also, looking back at the last 18 years, could we really say NU has been a have for almost a generation?
Of course Nebraska has been a "have" over the last 18 years... we have more resources than 85-90% of athletic departments.

The fact that those resources have been grossly missmanaged and/or under-utilized doesn't negate that they were available to not be.
 

JohnRossEwing

Offensive Coordinator
Jul 4, 2013
9,313
7,095
113
I know we like to pretend that the money is a "thing" but it really isn't...NU was doing just fine.

The move is fine and in the end I don't care but I do think NU fans would rather have close road games instead of games that require a passport.

In the end, we care about us over the team...so we want what is best for us. Like...I know NU makes crazy cash now and if I was getting some of that cash...I would be all about the Big Ten...
 

timnsun

Assistant Head Coach
Jan 25, 2008
9,545
10,999
113
I know we like to pretend that the money is a "thing" but it really isn't...NU was doing just fine.

The move is fine and in the end I don't care but I do think NU fans would rather have close road games instead of games that require a passport.

In the end, we care about us over the team...so we want what is best for us. Like...I know NU makes crazy cash now and if I was getting some of that cash...I would be all about the Big Ten...
Close is nice, no doubt, but stability is even nicer in my opinion. When we bolted the conference seemed like it was on the verge of imploding.

Also, now that I live in Minnesota, I’m good with B1G. :)
 

Redondo

Sophomore
Oct 7, 2012
1,112
727
113
Of course Nebraska has been a "have" over the last 18 years... we have more resources than 85-90% of athletic departments.

The fact that those resources have been grossly missmanaged and/or under-utilized doesn't negate that they were available to not be.
You have a good point but I am not sure the quote I was responding to meant it the way you do.
Also, during the non full revenue early years in the big 10, they weren't (the big 10) weren't treating us that way and maybe a little disrespectful, especially when marlyand and rutgers got a full share right away, when NU didn't, IMO
 
Last edited:

Blackshirt316

All-American
Jan 17, 2007
4,230
563
113
You have a good point but I am not sure the quote I was responding to meant it the way you do.
Also, during the non full revenue early years in the big 10, they weren't (the big 10) weren't treating us that way and maybe a little disrespectful, especially when marlyand and rutgers got a full share right away, when NU didn't, IMO
Maryland and Rutgers got a full share because they needed cash to remain solvent.

Maryland needed help to pay a $30M exit fee to the ACC and Rutgers was so broke they couldn't even afford their $11.5M exit fee.

Nebraska had plenty of money in the reserve fund to cover paying the up front buy-in. We had enough to not only cover the Big 12 buyout and both Pederson and Callahan's buyouts but to cover the $25M East Stadium expansion comfortably as well. (When Osborne was AD, Nebraska netted enough that about $15M was put into the reserve fund each year and I bet that figure is higher today.)

Maryland and Rutgers still have to pay their buy in, the Big Ten is just letting them wait to do it in a few years once they have built up their own reserve funds and are no longer in danger of being bankrupt.

Also understand, the buy-in wasn't for joining the conference itself, it's the cost each of the other schools had put in as the startup fund for the Big Ten Network. We were paying into a full share of BTN ownership and both Rutgers and Maryland will do the same, when they can afford to.


That's also why schools like Missouri, Colorado and A&M didn't have a buy in. There was no conference network for them to buy in to.



---
Also you think we were disrespected? The Big Ten stacked the hell out of our schedule those first few years. That wasn't disrespect, that was fear. They handed us crossovers with Ohio State, Penn State and Wisconsin so we couldn't just walk in and win the conference immediately.

Coversely, the SEC didn't respect Missouri at all and it cost the SEC. Missouri rode a soft schedule to a division title because the SEC gave them a crossover slate that skipped Bama, Auburn and LSU - the three top teams in the West.
 
Last edited:

BartonHusker

Walk On
Nov 6, 2004
249
424
63
The Big 8 was not only great to be in but we would be lying to ourselves if we didn’t admit the whole aspect of having close games to KU, KSU, ISU and MU was a major plus.

It is obvious that it isn’t easy to get tickets and for sure season tickets to Memorial. So many Husker fans use to plan around those road games at those four mentioned schools. It was easy to snatch up tickets and see our beloved Huskers. Then we had our rivalry with OU on top of it.
 

Redondo

Sophomore
Oct 7, 2012
1,112
727
113
Maryland and Rutgers got a full share because they needed cash to remain solvent.

Maryland needed help to pay a $30M exit fee to the ACC and Rutgers was so broke they couldn't even afford their $11.5M exit fee.

Nebraska had plenty of money in the reserve fund to cover paying the up front buy-in. We had enough to not only cover the Big 12 buyout and both Pederson and Callahan's buyouts but to cover the $25M East Stadium expansion comfortably as well. (When Osborne was AD, Nebraska netted enough that about $15M was put into the reserve fund each year and I bet that figure is higher today.)

Maryland and Rutgers still have to pay their buy in, the Big Ten is just letting them wait to do it in a few years once they have built up their own reserve funds and are no longer in danger of being bankrupt.

Also understand, the buy-in wasn't for joining the conference itself, it's the cost each of the other schools had put in as the startup fund for the Big Ten Network. We were paying into a full share of BTN ownership and both Rutgers and Maryland will do the same, when they can afford to.


That's also why schools like Missouri, Colorado and A&M didn't have a buy in. There was no conference network for them to buy in to.



---
Also you think we were disrespected? The Big Ten stacked the hell out of our schedule those first few years. That wasn't disrespect, that was fear. They handed us crossovers with Ohio State, Penn State and Wisconsin so we couldn't just walk in and win the conference immediately.

Coversely, the SEC didn't respect Missouri at all and it cost the SEC. Missouri rode a soft schedule to a division title because the SEC gave them a crossover slate that skipped Bama, Auburn and LSU - the three top teams in the West.
good points, But the fear factor, as you say, was probably legitimate, but I just had the feeling with those schedules, they didn't want the upitty newcomer, NU (jealousy perhaps for past success), to make their good old boys look bad by trying to beat the crap out of NU throughout the season to diminish their overall performance through the year.

But, that has happened many of the years, since NU has been in the big 10. I think they looked at, what was it at the time,the 3rd or 4th winningest program of all time ahead of every team in the big 10 but michigan, and the winningest in the last 50 years. I think there was an element of disrespect there, also, IMO
 

jehresm

Sophomore
Gold Member
Dec 1, 2013
1,316
2,659
113
The Big 8 was not only great to be in but we would be lying to ourselves if we didn’t admit the whole aspect of having close games to KU, KSU, ISU and MU was a major plus.

It is obvious that it isn’t easy to get tickets and for sure season tickets to Memorial. So many Husker fans use to plan around those road games at those four mentioned schools. It was easy to snatch up tickets and see our beloved Huskers. Then we had our rivalry with OU on top of it.
Circumstances have changed in a way that the "positives" of the Big 8 no longer apply, for starters:

Big 8 road trips were more attractive when few games were televised - and most of the opponents were bottom dwellers.

Stadium expansion (along with more games televised) has provided more access to single game and season tickets
 

Tuco Salamanca

Offensive Coordinator
Aug 18, 2016
9,383
12,187
113
Albuquerque
Circumstances have changed in a way that the "positives" of the Big 8 no longer apply, for starters:

Big 8 road trips were more attractive when few games were televised - and most of the opponents were bottom dwellers.

Stadium expansion (along with more games televised) has provided more access to single game and season tickets
Smart phones also have provided more access to single game and season tickets. Well according to Pat Fitzgerald anyway.
 

iclone

Walk On
Nov 22, 2001
125
92
28
Nebraska absolutely had to move to the Big 14. More revenue.

Nebraska's tier 3 product, unlike Texas and OU's, is practically worthless. They would not be making more in the Big 12 as a result. Huskers are where they need to be.
 

Redondo

Sophomore
Oct 7, 2012
1,112
727
113
Nebraska absolutely had to move to the Big 14. More revenue.

Nebraska's tier 3 product, unlike Texas and OU's, is practically worthless. They would not be making more in the Big 12 as a result. Huskers are where they need to be.
yes, I thought so several years before it happened and had a bad feeling when the big 12 was formed, especially when texass ruined one conference, already
 

pawildcat

Newbie
Sep 15, 2006
96
78
18
Maryland and Rutgers got a full share because they needed cash to remain solvent.

Maryland needed help to pay a $30M exit fee to the ACC and Rutgers was so broke they couldn't even afford their $11.5M exit fee.

Nebraska had plenty of money in the reserve fund to cover paying the up front buy-in. We had enough to not only cover the Big 12 buyout and both Pederson and Callahan's buyouts but to cover the $25M East Stadium expansion comfortably as well. (When Osborne was AD, Nebraska netted enough that about $15M was put into the reserve fund each year and I bet that figure is higher today.)

Maryland and Rutgers still have to pay their buy in, the Big Ten is just letting them wait to do it in a few years once they have built up their own reserve funds and are no longer in danger of being bankrupt.

Also understand, the buy-in wasn't for joining the conference itself, it's the cost each of the other schools had put in as the startup fund for the Big Ten Network. We were paying into a full share of BTN ownership and both Rutgers and Maryland will do the same, when they can afford to.


That's also why schools like Missouri, Colorado and A&M didn't have a buy in. There was no conference network for them to buy in to.



---
Also you think we were disrespected? The Big Ten stacked the hell out of our schedule those first few years. That wasn't disrespect, that was fear. They handed us crossovers with Ohio State, Penn State and Wisconsin so we couldn't just walk in and win the conference immediately.

Coversely, the SEC didn't respect Missouri at all and it cost the SEC. Missouri rode a soft schedule to a division title because the SEC gave them a crossover slate that skipped Bama, Auburn and LSU - the three top teams in the West.
Rutgers and Maryland have not been getting full revenue shares. They have been floated some loans, which will have to be paid back out of their future shares.
 

DudznSudz

Senior
Feb 4, 2016
2,155
2,051
113
I think the move overall has been a good one, and I have thought so from Day 1. I would have liked us to not have had to move, but we really had to and in all honesty, the Big Ten was a better conference to be in overall at that point and now, by FAR.

I like the teams, I like the history (it's one of the oldest athletic conferences in America), I like its Midwest and Upper Midwest regional focus that now stretches into the New York and DC markets, and I really, really like the inclusion of UNL into the Big Ten university system; it will only raise UNL's academic profile over the next few decades, as all of the Big Ten schools are excellent, academically.

Things I don't like: the fact that we haven't beaten everyone's ass. There, that's it.