UNL's Big Ten windfall around the corner

[jostar1]

When it comes to the athletic department's bottom line, the University of Nebraska-Lincoln's move to the Big Ten Conference hasn't proven a B1G winner so far.
The $15 million partial share of Big Ten revenue Nebraska received last year fell substantially below what former conference brethren such as Oklahoma, Texas and Iowa State received from the Big 12. In fact, the vast majority of big-time football schools were paid more by their leagues.
What's more, the University of Maryland, a relative no-name in football, is expected to be paid more than Nebraska when it joins the Big Ten next year.
So did Nebraska get a raw deal? Only if you look at the short term.
Other numbers uncovered by The World-Herald suggest Nebraska in three years is headed for a big financial score with the Big Ten.
In 2017, when Nebraska will finally be on equal financial footing with the core Big Ten schools, the school's annual revenue from the conference could well swell to between $40 million and $50 million a year.
Such a figure is astounding compared with four years ago, when the Big 12 paid NU $9 million.
The university in 2017 also gains a full ownership share in the Big Ten's TV network, which analysts have valued at more than $1.3 billion.
UNL Chancellor Harvey Perlman says he has no regrets over the deal he negotiated with the Big Ten in 2010.

http://www.omaha.com/article/20140209/NEWS/140208719

 

[billybud]

Maybe, with the added moola, Nebraska will return to 90's form.

 

[Ha Who]

Maybe, with the added moola, Nebraska will return to 90's form.

How about 70's form

 

[uconnfan68]

How about 70's form

They'd need to pay a lot more than they did then. That's where those farm subsidies go.

 

[btstimpy]

Maybe, with the added moola, Nebraska will return to 90's form.

Not happening. 90s form for Nebraska had a lot of access to Texas high school recruits. Plus the demographics in the 90s for high school football talent were still very good for midwestern and plains kids. In the 2010s, the talent is still in Texas, the Southeast, and California. Nebraska is in a league that plays zero games in those places. And, they are far away from them to offer unofficial visits. Nebraska will still do well if they can get kids to go there for official visits due to their 90s brand, but overall Nebraska's loss is TCU, Baylor, and Texas Tech's gain. These other three schools will get the talent. Nebraska will be linked to the Midwest where the talent is diminishing. That makes 90s form hard to achieve for Nebraska.

But they are in the CIC. I guess that's all that matters.

 

[B1GALUM]

Not happening. 90s form for Nebraska had a lot of access to Texas high school recruits. Plus the demographics in the 90s for high school football talent were still very good for midwestern and plains kids. In the 2010s, the talent is still in Texas, the Southeast, and California. Nebraska is in a league that plays zero games in those places. And, they are far away from them to offer unofficial visits. Nebraska will still do well if they can get kids to go there for official visits due to their 90s brand, but overall Nebraska's loss is TCU, Baylor, and Texas Tech's gain. These other three schools will get the talent. Nebraska will be linked to the Midwest where the talent is diminishing. That makes 90s form hard to achieve for Nebraska.

But they are in the CIC. I guess that's all that matters.

The membership in the CIC is certainly not all that matters. However, although your posts give the perception that you have no respect for the Big Ten or CIC, when viewed through the lens of academics the move to the Big Ten from the Big 12 and membership in the CIC is viewed by Nebraska as beneficial.

Now, I do agree with you on the long term outlook for Nebraska football. The move to the Big Ten provides academic benefit for Nebraska but does have an adverse effect on football and this will increasingly not sit well with fans of Nebraska football over time. It is going to be a challenge to recruit without the same access to Texas and compete in the conference when Michigan, MSU, OSU and PSU will be recruiting the Mid Atlantic region.

If the Big Ten does wish to pursue further expansion, then it may need to reconsider any desire for further expansion into the East (which I know would not involve any ACC schools) and consider the perspective of Nebraska much like it recently did with Penn State. While I like the move of the Big Ten to East-West divisions, these divisions are not competitively balanced and this imbalance will likely grow over time causing further consternation among Nebraska fans given their prior experience in the Big 12 North. As the Big 12 moves closer to expiration of their GOR, then the Big Ten may need to re-recruit Nebraska in a sense by trying to at least take a shot at Texas and Oklahoma to strengthen Nebraska football and the Big Ten West division.

 

[btstimpy]

The membership in the CIC is certainly not all that matters. However, although your posts give the perception that you have no respect for the Big Ten or CIC, when viewed through the lens of academics the move to the Big Ten from the Big 12 and membership in the CIC is viewed by Nebraska as beneficial.

Now, I do agree with you on the long term outlook for Nebraska football. The move to the Big Ten provides academic benefit for Nebraska but does have an adverse effect on football and this will increasingly not sit well with fans of Nebraska football over time. It is going to be a challenge to recruit without the same access to Texas and compete in the conference when Michigan, MSU, OSU and PSU will be recruiting the Mid Atlantic region.

If the Big Ten does wish to pursue further expansion, then it may need to reconsider any desire for further expansion into the East (which I know would not involve any ACC schools) and consider the perspective of Nebraska much like it recently did with Penn State. While I like the move of the Big Ten to East-West divisions, these divisions are not competitively balanced and this imbalance will likely grow over time causing further consternation among Nebraska fans given their prior experience in the Big 12 North. As the Big 12 moves closer to expiration of their GOR, then the Big Ten may need to re-recruit Nebraska in a sense by trying to at least take a shot at Texas and Oklahoma to strengthen Nebraska football and the Big Ten West division.

I'm confident that as we get 8-10 years down the road there will be opportunities for the Big Ten from the Big XII. I think that the Big Ten made a miscalculation with Missouri, but Kansas will be there. You may also have to look at swallowing Kansas State along with them. Then taking a shot at Oklahoma and Texas as well. But if you take Oklahoma, you have to take Oklahoma State too. It isn't really fair to these state rivalries to split all of them up, and politically it will be a fight. And then Iowa State probably belongs with Iowa. I know that the Big Ten doesn't like that addition, but Iowa State would fit just fine actually. One interesting thing regarding basketball is that since being a member of the Big Ten, Nebraska's basketball has improved greatly. Big Ten membership must be helping their basketball recruiting.

I think moving east that UConn would be a great addition for both the ACC and/or the Big Ten. But I think Jim Delaney has his hands full trying to realized what he promised the members of his league with regard to the assimilation of Rutgers and Maryland. He's even said that the Big Ten might miss out on some opportunities while it works to bring them in. He is very critical looking back on the Penn State assimilation, and he wants to do better this time. I'm just quoting what he's been publicly saying. I could be wrong, but I don't think he's looking to make any more additions for a few years at least.

I'm also not sure what the ACC wants to do. Right now the ACC has applied for scheduling flexibility with the divisions and the championship game to try to make this 14 team thing work. We're going to have to exhaust all of these appeals before doing anything, but everyone hates the 7 team divisions with 8 games. I like 16 teams in 4 PODS. But the league seems to like the current number, or they aren't seeing the revenue increase for adding more at the moment. I think that the ACC is set for a while too. And we have Swofford publicly saying we are.

 

[B1GALUM]

I'm confident that as we get 8-10 years down the road there will be opportunities for the Big Ten from the Big XII. I think that the Big Ten made a miscalculation with Missouri, but Kansas will be there. You may also have to look at swallowing Kansas State along with them. Then taking a shot at Oklahoma and Texas as well. But if you take Oklahoma, you have to take Oklahoma State too. It isn't really fair to these state rivalries to split all of them up, and politically it will be a fight. And then Iowa State probably belongs with Iowa. I know that the Big Ten doesn't like that addition, but Iowa State would fit just fine actually. One interesting thing regarding basketball is that since being a member of the Big Ten, Nebraska's basketball has improved greatly. Big Ten membership must be helping their basketball recruiting.

Although not a universal sentiment among Big Ten leadership - based on Gee's comments - and other Big Ten fans, I am in agreement with you that the Big Ten made a miscalculation with Missouri. Although the Big Ten going from 11 all the way up to 16 during the 2010 expansion may have been difficult to achieve, I think going from 11 to 14 could easily have been accomplished with Nebraska, Missouri and Rutgers. This would have set up, in my opinion, an option for a reasonable East-West split: Indiana, Purdue, OSU, Michigan, MSU, PSU and Rutgers in the east; Illinois, Northwestern, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Nebraska, and Missouri in the west. This would provide flexibility as well to move East, West or in both directions to get to 16 down the road if that goal was desired. It would be interesting to see what the Big Ten would do if Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas approached the conference to join but stipulated Texas Tech, Oklahoma State and Kansas State would need to come along for the ride. Based on conversations and reading to date, I think the Big Ten would pass on these additions if that stipulation were in place.

 

[B1GALUM]

I think moving east that UConn would be a great addition for both the ACC and/or the Big Ten. But I think Jim Delaney has his hands full trying to realized what he promised the members of his league with regard to the assimilation of Rutgers and Maryland. He's even said that the Big Ten might miss out on some opportunities while it works to bring them in. He is very critical looking back on the Penn State assimilation, and he wants to do better this time. I'm just quoting what he's been publicly saying. I could be wrong, but I don't think he's looking to make any more additions for a few years at least.

I think UConn would absolutely be a great addition to the Big Ten or ACC. From the perspective of the Big Ten, the addition of UConn would strengthen the Eastern presence of the conference, basketball and the BTN. I think your description of Delany and the additions of Maryland and Rutgers is spot on and this does present a barrier to further additions at this time including UConn. However, it is my thought that the door is not completing closed. Several Big Ten ADs - Glass from IU, Brandon from Michigan, Hollis from MSU - have spoken about 16 being a more ideal number for the conference. If further expansion including UConn would benefit the Big Ten heading into their new media rights deal, then this might tempt Delany to recommend further expansion to the Big Ten presidents and chancellors.

 

[Pat125]

UConn is definitely the missing piece on the east coast for a Big 10 or ACC invite, to bolster the NY to Boston markets. I was kind of surprised that UConn wasn't selected by the ACC to replace Maryland. UConn had so much more than Louisville to offer in multiple categories, except football. Apparently, that mattered most this time when replacing Maryland.

The Big 10 would need to find an appropriate 16th team, probably one that is strong in football. UConn would be a good full 15th member for the ACC if they can figure out a way to structure 15 teams in football, say with three pods of 5, with a change in the CCG structure, until and if the ACC is able to get ND as a full member.

I just can't see how UConn can be left out for five more years, but I understand that UConn fans have heard this all before.

 

[Fishy]

It is part of our unique draw in conference realignment that we are likely the last viable addition to multiple conferences and will likely suffer the consequences of being a single peg where matched pairs are necessary.

We have a knack for this sort of thing.

 

[HawkHusky]

It is part of our unique draw in conference realignment that we are likely the last viable addition to multiple conferences and will likely suffer the consequences of being a single peg where matched pairs are necessary.

We have a knack for this sort of thing.

Which is why it's probably in UCONN's best interest for the ACC and other conferences to get autonomy when it comes to divisions and crowning a conference champion. I think I read somewhere that it will most likely get passed this summer - great timing before the B1G contract renewal if it goes through.

 

[bobbyinaz]

Which is why it's probably in UCONN's best interest for the ACC and other conferences to get autonomy when it comes to divisions and crowning a conference champion. I think I read somewhere that it will most likely get passed this summer - great timing before the B1G contract renewal if it goes through.

I haven't seen it reported anywhere that this is likely to be approved.

 

[HawkHusky]

I haven't seen it reported anywhere that this is likely to be approved.

The ACC has a man on the inside - the Wake Forest President is the chair of the board that decides, and he is quoted as saying he thinks it will pass...

http://espn.go.com/blog/acc/post/_/id/67397/ncaa-chair-has-encouraging-words-for-acc

 

[NickyNewark]

Not happening. 90s form for Nebraska had a lot of access to Texas high school recruits. Plus the demographics in the 90s for high school football talent were still very good for midwestern and plains kids. In the 2010s, the talent is still in Texas, the Southeast, and California. Nebraska is in a league that plays zero games in those places. And, they are far away from them to offer unofficial visits. Nebraska will still do well if they can get kids to go there for official visits due to their 90s brand, but overall Nebraska's loss is TCU, Baylor, and Texas Tech's gain. These other three schools will get the talent. Nebraska will be linked to the Midwest where the talent is diminishing. That makes 90s form hard to achieve for Nebraska.

But they are in the CIC. I guess that's all that matters.

I remember the powerful Nebraska teams in the 70s into the 80s always had a strong NJ presense with guys like Larry Glover and Mike Rozier on them teams then in the 90s they started relying on the SW/Texas for talent for some reason? Maybe they always recruited Texas hard that I was unaware of at that time?

 

[tzznandrew]

Yeah, remember that theyweren't in the same conference with Texas until the BXII formed in the mid-1990s. I think that's a little overplayed.

 

[Fairfield_1st]

In 2017, when Nebraska will finally be on equal financial footing with the core Big Ten schools, the school's annual revenue from the conference could well swell to between $40 million and $50 million a year.

Can someone help me understand why schools don't get full shares when they join? The concept is odd ot me and doesn't make logical sense. How long does it take before you are a full share? Granted I'd take partial payments in the B1G versus full payments in the AAC, but at some point it would fire me up that we're not on equal footing.

 

[btstimpy]

I remember the powerful Nebraska teams in the 70s into the 80s always had a strong NJ presense with guys like Larry Glover and Mike Rozier on them teams then in the 90s they started relying on the SW/Texas for talent for some reason? Maybe they always recruited Texas hard that I was unaware of at that time?

70s and 80s were an era where you could recruit the top talent nationally, and top talent was geographically distributed rather evenly around the country. So, I'm sure they got good talent out of the east as well as the plains and midwest. All of the recruiting analysts that go back that far will tell you that this isn't the story today. The talent today is in the Southeast (particularly the Atlantic Southeast (i.e. Florida, Georgia)), Texas, and California. Outside of that you have Ohio. Ohio State will gobble up much of the best of what's in Ohio, and you have half a dozen MAC teams there taking some locally as well. New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, etc. still has some today, but the trend is to the other areas.

Nebraska had access to the Texas area while in the Big XII. I'm sure they are still trying to pull stuff out of there just as I'm sure West Virginia now has to try since WVU has lost Florida access. But it is much easier for Texas Tech, TCU, and Baylor to get it now with Nebraska out of sight and mind. RGIII had Nebraska all over him in the old days. Not today. Also now that most every team gets on television today, kids don't have to go far from home. In the 70s and 80s only a hand full of schools got on TV nationally. Nebraska was one of those.

What will be interesting to watch is whether a school like UCF or USF can take advantage of their geographic location to do what Baylor has done. Watching UCF beat Baylor in the Fiesta Bowl may have given me my answer, but I'd like to see it over more than 1 data point.

 

[NickyNewark]

70s and 80s were an era where you could recruit the top talent nationally, and top talent was geographically distributed rather evenly around the country. So, I'm sure they got good talent out of the east as well as the plains and midwest. All of the recruiting analysts that go back that far will tell you that this isn't the story today. The talent today is in the Southeast (particularly the Atlantic Southeast (i.e. Florida, Georgia)), Texas, and California. Outside of that you have Ohio. Ohio State will gobble up much of the best of what's in Ohio, and you have half a dozen MAC teams there taking some locally as well. New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, etc. still has some today, but the trend is to the other areas.

Nebraska had access to the Texas area while in the Big XII. I'm sure they are still trying to pull stuff out of there just as I'm sure West Virginia now has to try since WVU has lost Florida access. But it is much easier for Texas Tech, TCU, and Baylor to get it now with Nebraska out of sight and mind. RGIII had Nebraska all over him in the old days. Not today. Also now that most every team gets on television today, kids don't have to go far from home. In the 70s and 80s only a hand full of schools got on TV nationally. Nebraska was one of those.

What will be interesting to watch is whether a school like UCF or USF can take advantage of their geographic location to do what Baylor has done. Watching UCF beat Baylor in the Fiesta Bowl may have given me my answer, but I'd like to see it over more than 1 data point.

The population may be trending SW but NJ HSFB is amongst the best in the country as shown by DBP ,St Joes, Montvale, SPP and Bergen Catholic among many others esp the Parochials for a relatively small state(like Va or NC) as Kirk Herbstreit can attest!! Better than it was even when I was a kinder in the 60s and kids actually come here from all over the region to play HSFB. I remember reading where 1 medium sized HS(Kearny HS) even canceled a game with one of these teams with parents fearing for their childrens safety on the gridiron recently!!!

 

[HawkHusky]

The population may be trending SW but NJ HSFB is amongst the best in the country as shown by DBP ,St Joes, Montvale, SPP and Bergen Catholic among many others esp the Parochials for a relatively small state as Kirk Herbstreit can attest!! Better than it was even when I was a kinder in the 60s and kids actually come here from all over the region to play HSFB.

And that's why Diaco with his NJ ties was a great hire for UCONN football.

 

[NickyNewark]

And that's why Diaco with his NJ ties was a great hire for UCONN football.

Thats why I was overjoyed with HCBD's hire....he'll mine NJ/NY and everywhere in the NE/SE for talent like UConn (at least perceptionwise) has ever seen in CFB!! Dazzy at BC will soon find out esp in NNJ parochials with his area and ND credentials!

 

[bobbyinaz]

Can someone help me understand why schools don't get full shares when they join? The concept is odd ot me and doesn't make logical sense. How long does it take before you are a full share? Granted I'd take partial payments in the B1G versus full payments in the AAC, but at some point it would fire me up that we're not on equal footing.

I don't know about other conferences but the B1G does it because the conference owns 49% of the BTN. Because of this the new schools that come in are basically providing sweat equity over a period of time until they "own" an equal share of the netwrok

 

[btstimpy]

The population may be trending SW but NJ HSFB is amongst the best in the country as shown by DBP ,St Joes, Montvale, SPP and Bergen Catholic among many others esp the Parochials for a relatively small state(like Va or NC) as Kirk Herbstreit can attest!! Better than it was even when I was a kinder in the 60s and kids actually come here from all over the region to play HSFB. I remember reading where 1 medium sized HS(Kearny HS) even canceled a game with one of these teams with parents fearing for their childrens safety on the gridiron recently!!!

There remains good high school football talent in New Jersey. But it is at a diminished volume to the other areas mentioned. If Rutgers gets it all like Ohio State does in Ohio, they'll thrive. You have to keep it away from UConn, Boston College, Penn State, Syracuse, Pittsburgh, and schools south.

By comparison though, Florida and Florida State only have to get a small portion of what's available to them to thrive. Heck Louisville has been taking the best of South Florida talent for about 5 years, and FSU still won the National Championship without it. Plenty to go around there.

 

[NickyNewark]

There remains good high school football talent in New Jersey. But it is at a diminished volume to the other areas mentioned. If Rutgers gets it all like Ohio State does in Ohio, they'll thrive. You have to keep it away from UConn, Boston College, Penn State, Syracuse, Pittsburgh, and schools south.

By comparison though, Florida and Florida State only have to get a small portion of what's available to them to thrive. Heck Louisville has been taking the best of South Florida talent for about 5 years, and FSU still won the National Championship without it. Plenty to go around there.

I was just comparing the relative soundness of NJHSFB to the rest of the states in head to head! For instance DBP goes to Fla,Cali and Ala regularly and usually takes the best of there's to the woodshed..some play in Herbrbstreits Ohio challenge and do better than most! Wasnt talking about recent recruiting here jus saying there's plenty of talent up here that don't usually get credit unless they earn it!

 

[Vowelguy]

I think moving east that UConn would be a great addition for both the ACC and/or the Big Ten.

Given what you've said about the Big10 and access to HS talent, why would UConn be a great addition? The BiG may be making the most money now, but if its recent crappy results in FB continue, it will decline in value. It seems (I fear) that the BiG has to move South, and that it's not going to waste a spot on a state without much HS potential.