So... What if Texas wanted in the Big Ten and compensated B1G for appearances on LHN?

[Seaa Blue]

Out-of-the-box thought here:

If Texas *really* wanted in the Big Ten they could compensate their Big Ten opponents for appearances on LHN. In exchange for this paper transaction they would earn more than that back as part of the Big Ten conference.

Win-win or total non-starter?

Of course this doesn't answer what to do about the Big 12 GoR, but it does address how LHN could be incorporated into the Big Ten.

@kyleslamb are you out there? Congrats to your Buckeyes.

 

[UConnJim]

Out-of-the-box thought here:

If Texas *really* wanted in the Big Ten they could compensate their Big Ten opponents for appearances on LHN. In exchange for this paper transaction they would earn more than that back as part of the Big Ten conference.

Win-win or total non-starter?

Of course this doesn't answer what to do about the Big 12 GoR, but it does address how LHN could be incorporated into the Big Ten.

@kyleslamb are you out there? Congrats to your Buckeyes.

The B1G is probably feeling a lot better about their football right now with OSU winning the football playoff, Michigan hiring Harbaugh, Michigan St showing staying power, and Penn St coming off sanctions. They are in a position of strength right now and don't need Texas and they do not need to treat any school different from the rest of the schools. The Big 12 blew up because Texas wanted to be treated different, so why would the B1G make the same mistake?

 

[AZHuskiePop]

The B1G is probably feeling a lot better about their football right now with OSU winning the football playoff, Michigan hiring Harbaugh, Michigan St showing staying power, and Penn St coming off sanctions. They are in a position of strength right now and don't need Texas and they do not need to treat any school different from the rest of the schools. The Big 12 blew up because Texas wanted to be treated different, so why would the B1G make the same mistake?

I don't think the Nebraska folks would be too anxious to re-unite with the Longhorns . But the powers in the BiG are OSU and Michigan,and the thought of adding Texas recruits would be too tempting to pass up..

 

[Dooley]

If they could find a way to add Texas before the T1 negotiating window comes up in the next few years (expires in 2016-17), they'll do it. But it would mean complete and even revenue distribution amongst all members. That is the B1G motto and who can argue with it...it seems to be working quite well. The LHN revenue stream would have to go. Texas has enough money to buy its way out of the B12 GoR if it wanted to but they would have to be willing to fall in line as an "equal" member with the rest of the conference. I'm not sure they see themselves as equals with anyone else. But can you imagine the TV deal Delany could negotiate if he expanded before 2016-17 and it included Texas??? We're talking yearly payouts north of $60M per school, easy. You could then argue that UCONN would be more valuable for the B1G because of the value that we bring in basketball for the basketball contract to be negotiated.

 

[kyleslamb]

Out-of-the-box thought here:

If Texas *really* wanted in the Big Ten they could compensate their Big Ten opponents for appearances on LHN. In exchange for this paper transaction they would earn more than that back as part of the Big Ten conference.

Win-win or total non-starter?

Of course this doesn't answer what to do about the Big 12 GoR, but it does address how LHN could be incorporated into the Big Ten.

@kyleslamb are you out there? Congrats to your Buckeyes.

They could do that, yes, or the league could simply withhold a prorated share of the league payout based on how much the LHN earns in those games. There are certainly ways to make that work if they're so inclined.

The OSU national title is still pretty incredible to ponder. Talk about a season that no one saw coming, especially with how it started.

 

[UConnJim]

In my opinion, Texas is not a good fit for the B1G. Texas has historically wanted control and the B1G is not about to give it to them. In addition, Texas has not had to travel much and joining the B1G would be a big change. For example, how many times per year does Texas football play outside the state of Texas? Since 2008, the average has been slightly less than 3x with a low of 2x (twice) and a high of 4x (once). How many times does Texas travel outside of Texas and Oklahoma for basketball? In conference, 4x per year, and out of conference about 3x. Every Texas sport would face the same change in travel. By the way, the closest B1G school to Austin is Nebraska at >800 miles!

So, Texas is going to give up conference control, the LHN, and minimal travel currently to join a northern conference, the B1G? What does Texas get out of the deal? If Texas ever joins a conference, it would be the SEC. You could put them in a pod with traditional rivals like Texas A&M and Arkansas and maybe Texas Tech (or whoever joins with them or Missouri or LSU).

 

[SportsPageMike]

Whenever the Big 12 folds or schools are taken from them don't be surprised if Texas become and independent. They do not like being a bridesmaid to anyone. With their own network they can do it. Have no idea on how watched they are because we don't have their network up here in CT.

 

[pj]

I agree, Texas will become an independent, with ESPN-brokered relationships with the SEC and ACC.

 

[The Funster]

I can't see Texas ever wanting to be on equal footing with all it's conference mates. Nor can I see the B1G ever accepting Texas as anything but an equal to all the B1G conference members. Honestly, I think Texas will end up in the SEC.

 

[frankthetank]

I agree, Texas will become an independent, with ESPN-brokered relationships with the SEC and ACC.

Contrary to what seems to be popular belief, the SEC is as much of an "everyone shares money equally" conference as the Big Ten. That's one thing that the leagues have in common.

However, I can definitely envision Texas getting a Notre Dame-style deal with the ACC with independence for football and conference membership for all other sports. I'd wager on that before Texas joining the Big Ten or SEC as full members. The LHN is simply unworkable with both the Big Ten and SEC.

On the other hand, one thing that I had underestimated several years ago when I was writing about Texas was that they actually seem to *like* the fact that schools like Texas Tech and Baylor depend upon them. I really thought they truly wanted to get away from their little brothers to be with more of their academic peers, but they clearly have different interests in mind. My analogy was that Texas wants to own a huge ranch and hire worker bees from Lubbock and Waco, whereas Notre Dame just wants everyone to get the duckk off of their lawn. Texas gets a perverse delight from actually controlling an entire conference (not to mention the direct financial benefit of the LHN) that they wouldn't have anywhere else. The Big 12 lives as long as Texas stays... and Texas seems to want to stay.

 

[frankthetank]

I can't see Texas ever wanting to be on equal footing with all it's conference mates. Nor can I see the B1G ever accepting Texas as anything but an equal to all the B1G conference members. Honestly, I think Texas will end up in the SEC.

I don't see them in the SEC. In fact, I'd put them last among all of 5 power conferences that would ever end up with some type of association (whether full or partial) with Texas. The SEC has the same "we're all equal" money arrangement as the Big Ten (if people don't think Ohio State and Michigan would agree to the LHN, there's no reason to think that Florida and Alabama would) without the academic panache. I could see a Notre Dame-style arrangement with the ACC or a full membership with the Pac-12 (as they've shown that they're more willing to take on "little brother" schools like Texas Tech and Oklahoma State in order to get the bigger prizes). The Big Ten is less likely now, and then the SEC is least likely.

 

[Fishy]

Texas rakes in more revenue than any other athletic program in the country.

There's zero impetus for them to make any kind of move. They have everything.

If you want to see where the power in college sports truly is....

Even before the Big Ten Network has really ramped up, seven of the top 20 athletic departments in terms of revenue are in the Big Ten. Eight are in the SEC. Two are in the Big 12, two are in the PAC-12 and the ACC didn't have a single one until this year when UL joined.

 

[itgoeslike]

The SEC has the same "we're all equal" money arrangement as the Big Ten (if people don't think Ohio State and Michigan would agree to the LHN, there's no reason to think that Florida and Alabama would) without the academic panache.

The suggestion that the Big Ten operates like the SEC when it comes to distribution of revenue is totally inaccurate. The Big Ten has a 7 year integration period, longer than any other conference. Rutgers and Marlyand won't become full partners until the 2020-2021 season. In fact, the integration teams, including Nebraska, won't see any of the incremental revenue from Ohio State's Semi-Final Game. See Link below.

http://www.nj.com/rutgersfootball/i..._state_playing_for_national_championship.html

The SEC started handing out equal shares to its new members in their first year. The PAC 12 started Colorado as an equal partner and Utah has a three-year integration plan. Texas aside, the Big 12 has West Virginia on a four-year integration plan. While the revenue in the ACC is somewhat tiered, they start out new members with "fullish" shares. The Big Ten is still the optimum conference for UConn, which would readily endure a 7 year integration plan, with a smile on its face, but so suggest the B1G operates like the SEC is not just accurate. In fact, they are pretty much on the other end of the spectrum.

 

[Kolumbo]

Integration plans. Excellent. Big 10 or Big 12 could put UCONN on a 20 year integration plan and everyone wins. Basketball is saved and exploited on the cheap.

 

[billybud]

The suggestion that the Big Ten operates like the SEC when it comes to distribution of revenue is totally inaccurate. The Big Ten has a 7 year integration period, longer than any other conference. Rutgers and Marlyand won't become full partners until the 2020-2021 season. In fact, the integration teams, including Nebraska, won't see any of the incremental revenue from Ohio State's Semi-Final Game. See Link below.

http://www.nj.com/rutgersfootball/i..._state_playing_for_national_championship.html

The SEC started handing out equal shares to its new members in their first year. The PAC 12 started Colorado as an equal partner and Utah has a three-year integration plan. Texas aside, the Big 12 has West Virginia on a four-year integration plan. While the revenue in the ACC is somewhat tiered, they start out new members with "fullish" shares. The Big Ten is still the optimum conference for UConn, which would readily endure a 7 year integration plan, with a smile on its face, but so suggest the B1G operates like the SEC is not just accurate. In fact, they are pretty much on the other end of the spectrum.

Link please on that "somewhat tiered" and "fullish share" for ACC? The ACC did change philosophy so that teams would no longer lose money going to a CCG or bowl...but other than that, they made no change.

Louisville brings in a full share.

What they did do:

" ACC officials are far more inclined to change the conference’s distribution of bowl revenue. But that doesn’t translate to abandoning the league’s long-standing philosophy of equal shares.

Presently, schools that earn bowl bids receive a lump sum for travel expenses to the game based on the game’s prestige and payout. The remaining bowl revenues are then divided equally among all member schools, including those that didn’t qualify for postseason."

“I think it will remain basically an equal share,” Swofford said, “but how we get to that point of an equal share will change. … It’s not right for a team to play in a game and lose money (because of ticket obligations and travel) and a school not playing in a bowl to come out ahead of the game financially. …

 

[Seaa Blue]

The suggestion that the Big Ten operates like the SEC when it comes to distribution of revenue is totally inaccurate. The Big Ten has a 7 year integration period..

Well yeah, but at the end of the integration period you OWN a full share of BTN. That's what the withholdings are all about; buying equity.

 

[itgoeslike]

Link please on that "somewhat tiered" and "fullish share" for ACC? The ACC did change philosophy so that teams would no longer lose money going to a CCG or bowl...but other than that, they made no change.

Louisville brings in a full share.

What they did do:

" ACC officials are far more inclined to change the conference’s distribution of bowl revenue. But that doesn’t translate to abandoning the league’s long-standing philosophy of equal shares.

Presently, schools that earn bowl bids receive a lump sum for travel expenses to the game based on the game’s prestige and payout. The remaining bowl revenues are then divided equally among all member schools, including those that didn’t qualify for postseason."

“I think it will remain basically an equal share,” Swofford said, “but how we get to that point of an equal share will change. … It’s not right for a team to play in a game and lose money (because of ticket obligations and travel) and a school not playing in a bowl to come out ahead of the game financially. …

The ACC comment was filler for making my point. You should be happy that I was pointing out that the ACC was paying out new members in the first year. Of course, over the long term, Maryland will make and surpass the revenue of the average ACC team, including FSU. . . Here's a link that discusses 2013-2014 as well as previous years.

http://www.dailypress.com/sports/teel-blog/dp-teel-time-acc-revenue-1314-post.html#page=1

As you can see, the year prior they had a "somewhat tiered" system, even though the quote you provided says "the league’s long-standing philosophy of equal shares". Of course, further down the same narrative Swofford characterizes it as "basically an equal share".

# The conference’s 2012-13 tax return, Form 990, showed total revenue of $232.45 million, a modest 3.9-percent bump from the previous year. Per-school payouts ranged from Florida State’s $19.5 million to Wake Forest’s $16.6 million.

Here's a couple of links for past returns, which can be found in many places. They include the actual payouts to each school. Let's see what the conference actually files before buying too far into what the commissioner says.

http://pdfs.citizenaudit.org/2014_07_EO/56-0599082_990_201306.pdf
http://www.guidestar.org/ViewPdf.aspx?PdfSource=0&ein=56-0599082
http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2013/560/599/2013-560599082-0a6bf472-9.pdf

I'm going to make a drink and watch the defending national champion play some basketball.

 

[itgoeslike]

Well yeah, but at the end of the integration period you OWN a full share of BTN. That's what the withholdings are all about; buying equity.

Well, a full share out of the 49% they own. . .but how does withholding Ohio State's playoff game revenue from Nebraska fit into the vesting period? Also, Nebraska gets a smaller slice from all revenue, not just BTN. As I said above, I would welcome putting UConn on the 7-year plan.

 

[Seaa Blue]

Well, a full share out of the 49% they own. . .but how does withholding Ohio State's playoff game revenue from Nebraska fit into the vesting period? Also, Nebraska gets a smaller slice from all revenue, not just BTN. As I said above, I would welcome putting UConn on the 7-year plan.

@kyleslamb, can you explain this one?

I have assumed that Nebraska needs to contribute $x to attain its full share. Anything short of full-share that it doesn't receive goes toward the buy-in (and gets distributed to the current university shareholders). I have also theorized (with some reason to believe it to be correct) that Maryland's cash-up-front deal is offset by extending its buy-in period.

 

[Seaa Blue]

# The conference’s 2012-13 tax return, Form 990, showed total revenue of $232.45 million, a modest 3.9-percent bump from the previous year. Per-school payouts ranged from Florida State’s $19.5 million to Wake Forest’s $16.6 million.

Swofford sold tier 1,2 and 3 rights to ESPN (with an expectation to sub-license back to Raycom, and with Fox picking up what ESPN handed to them). Naturally, the payout should look fairly balanced since Tier 1,2 and 3 money is shared across the board. The huge downside is that the ACC network can't get off the ground with all those Tier 3 rights being locked up.

The Big 12 schools get to keep (I believe) the rights to 1 football game and several basketball games for themselves. So, while that does represent less balance and work in the ACC's favor (regarding "balance"), the money those schools receive for those rights is often times not included when you see figures that purport to show an apples-to-apples comparison between conferences.

As for the Big Ten, when it comes to 'fair and balanced'... it has a formula for sharing gate revenue across all conference games (not just a weekly payout to visitors) and has picked up unsold bowl ticket allotments for some time.

 

[DarthGrumpy]

I can't see Texas ever wanting to be on equal footing with all it's conference mates. Nor can I see the B1G ever accepting Texas as anything but an equal to all the B1G conference members. Honestly, I think Texas will end up in the SEC.

For all intent, the SEC is the same as the B1G when it comes to revenue sharing. No way will the existing SEC powers such as Alabama, Auburn, LSU and Florida accept a ‘special’ deal for U Texas. They are not going to be wowed by Texas’ 9 National Titles as Florida as U Florida and Auburn have 5 each, LSU has 8, and Alabama has 19. Plus, throw in politics such as Texas A&M potentially being against the addition of the Long Horns now that they are under their shadow and what to do with Texas Tech if politically U Texas and Texas Tech cannot be separated.

If Texas is to leave the XII and their #1 priority is to have a sweetheart deal, the ACC is their best bet; but, they will be geographically and culturally (Tobacco Road crew) isolated. If Texas primary need is to save Texas Tech and others, then the PAC is their best bet as the PAC has the room to add U Texas and it’s little friends and potentially get a sweetheart deal, too. If Texas does not care about its cousins and is OK with giving-up it’s special status, best bet is that they go B1G as they offer Texas to the B1G whereas the SEC already has a flag there and academically and from an overall sports slate (# of sports sponsored), they match well with the B1G. If Texas goes to the B1G, Kansas and Oklahoma are going, too, allowing for some local rivals for Texas to play with. UConn’s best hope is that the three little kids (Texas Tech, K State, Ok State) can be separated and saved elsewhere (PAC?) allowing UConn to get the 4th slot to give the B1G 18 schools.

 

[kyleslamb]

@kyleslamb, can you explain this one?

I have assumed that Nebraska needs to contribute $x to attain its full share. Anything short of full-share that it doesn't receive goes toward the buy-in (and gets distributed to the current university shareholders). I have also theorized (with some reason to believe it to be correct) that Maryland's cash-up-front deal is offset by extending its buy-in period.

I haven't ever heard specific numbers, but the way I heard it explained was that for 5 years, Nebraska receives an escalating prorated share from the league payout (which includes media money, bowl game revenue, gate sharing if applicable and the NCAA men's basketball fund from tournament shares). The money held back from the share essentially is the buy-in the a new share of the BTN.

 

[CONN Ed]

For all intent, the SEC is the same as the B1G when it comes to revenue sharing. No way will the existing SEC powers such as Alabama, Auburn, LSU and Florida accept a ‘special’ deal for U Texas. They are not going to be wowed by Texas’ 9 National Titles as Florida as U Florida and Auburn have 5 each, LSU has 8, and Alabama has 19. Plus, throw in politics such as Texas A&M potentially being against the addition of the Long Horns now that they are under their shadow and what to do with Texas Tech if politically U Texas and Texas Tech cannot be separated.

If Texas is to leave the XII and their #1 priority is to have a sweetheart deal, the ACC is their best bet; but, they will be geographically and culturally (Tobacco Road crew) isolated. If Texas primary need is to save Texas Tech and others, then the PAC is their best bet as the PAC has the room to add U Texas and it’s little friends and potentially get a sweetheart deal, too. If Texas does not care about its cousins and is OK with giving-up it’s special status, best bet is that they go B1G as they offer Texas to the B1G whereas the SEC already has a flag there and academically and from an overall sports slate (# of sports sponsored), they match well with the B1G. If Texas goes to the B1G, Kansas and Oklahoma are going, too, allowing for some local rivals for Texas to play with. UConn’s best hope is that the three little kids (Texas Tech, K State, Ok State) can be separated and saved elsewhere (PAC?) allowing UConn to get the 4th slot to give the B1G 18 schools.

If Tech, OK and Texas go B1G, UCONN gets bumped by Kansas (AAU member since 1909) as they too will be looking for a new home. (BTW, I don't think this will happen...just conversation.) (BTW, don't think KS ever goes to B1G... Kansas is the trophy if one had to pick. Just an opinion.)

 

[pj]

Va Tech is the key for UConn ... if they go we are the natural partner.

Kansas and Oklahoma probably go together to the B1G. Texas to independent/ACC affiliate. ACC is ESPN's slave and will give a home to ESPN's Texas baby.

 

[CONN Ed]

Va Tech is the key for UConn ... if they go we are the natural partner.

Kansas and Oklahoma probably go together to the B1G. Texas to independent/ACC affiliate. ACC is ESPN's slave and will give a home to ESPN's Texas baby.

OK doesn't get into B1G w/o Texas. A southwest expansion would be based entirely on getting Texas. Taking OK simply might be the cost of doing business. (Again, I don't think this will happen.)