NCAA reorg imminent

[wgdsr]

When the Big Ten revealed the details of its upcoming media rights deal less than 24 hours after the Regents meeting, both USC and UCLA were included as key players in the statement. The deal, which is the largest in the history of college athletics, will reportedly be worth $7 to $8 billion across seven years starting July 1, 2023.

UCLA and USC will not be joining the conference until 2024, but they will be earning an even share of the conference revenue the moment they arrive. Payouts are expected to approach $100 million per school annually.

https://www.si.com/college/ucla/.amp/ne ... roadblocks

DocBarrister

there. you finally quoted it properly. conference payouts.

[DocBarrister]

The deal will begin July 1, 2023, and run through the end of the 2029-30 athletic year. Specific terms were not disclosed, but a financial windfall won't come immediately, according to media sources. The CBS payout in Year 1 of the agreement is lower since it still will be carrying SEC games during the 2023 season and will air only seven Big Ten contests that fall. But the Big Ten's per-school distribution will turn upward in Year 2 of the deal, when new members USC and UCLA enter the conference. Revenue will rise substantially beginning in Year 3.

The Big Ten is projected to eventually distribute $80 million to $100 million per year to each of its 16 members. According to USA Today, the league distributed $54.3 million to most of its members during the most recent fiscal year (2019-20) not impacted by the coronavirus pandemic.

https://www.espn.com/college-football/s ... atform=amp

DocBarrister

[DocBarrister]

When the Big Ten revealed the details of its upcoming media rights deal less than 24 hours after the Regents meeting, both USC and UCLA were included as key players in the statement. The deal, which is the largest in the history of college athletics, will reportedly be worth $7 to $8 billion across seven years starting July 1, 2023.

UCLA and USC will not be joining the conference until 2024, but they will be earning an even share of the conference revenue the moment they arrive. Payouts are expected to approach $100 million per school annually.

https://www.si.com/college/ucla/.amp/ne ... roadblocks

DocBarrister

there. you finally quoted it properly. conference payouts.

What’s your point?

Because your post does not have one.

DocBarrister

[DocBarrister]

The seven-year deal announced Thursday morning is reportedly worth over $1 billion annually, with payouts of $80-100 million per member institution. Smith said the money is obviously a massive factor, but he also believed spreading the deal across multiple platforms was crucial.


https://www.cleveland.com/osu/2022/08/o ... utType=amp

DocBarrister

[DocBarrister]

In 2023-24, the league’s schools will receive the same conference distribution as they did in 2022-23 (nearly $60 million per school). The league’s payouts will increase slightly in Year 2 (2024-25) before drastically increasing the final five years of the deal from 2025-30, growing to about $100 million per school, including revenue from the College Football Playoff, bowl games and the NCAA Basketball Tournament.

Big Ten commissioner Kevin Warren, who is in Napa Valley, California, attending Rose Bowl meetings with Pac-12 commissioner George Kliavkoff and other officials, said he was grateful the new media rights agreement will provide stability and maximum exposure for the league’s student-athletes.

“I’m excited about the creativity of what we’re going to be able to deliver to our fans and to our student-athletes and to our families,” Warren said.

https://www.actionnetwork.com/ncaaf/big ... ttMcMurphy

It’s the last five, not six years where the payout may approach $100 million. That is: 2025-2026, 2026-2027, 2027-2028, 2028-2029, and 2029-2030.

DocBarrister

[OCanada]

I don’t believe enough forethought is being given to the end game.

I and many others believe the end gsme will find D-1 FB will be outside the NCAA in the end.

If true then there would no longer be schollies for it

If so Title IX would see a huge reset and lax could explode eh all B1G schools would have lax teams. Rather than schools having a growing pool of better recruits there would be more competition for recruits

Just my .10

[ggait]

Canada — lots of changes coming, but your scenario likely will not be one of them.

T9 is independent of ncaa status. Harvard mens rowing is a varsity sport but not an ncaa sport. T9 applies. The only thing that would eliminate T9 would be if the football teams were separated completely from the schools. Like a full on pro team that just licenses the brand IP from the school. No one thinks that would ever happen in the B10.

Given where this is all going, I don’t think there is any scenario where lacrosse or any other non revenue sport explodes. Especially on the mens side. And even if T9 was repealed. As an overall trend, non revenue sports are going to be flat or down.

For example, ucla is famous for sending bruins to the Olympics in many non revenue sports. Their large athletic department was on the verge of bankruptcy. They were planning to eliminate many of their Olympic sports. Luckily the B10 Santa Claus arrived in the nick of time.

Look at Stanford. No college has more dough than Stanford. They cut eleven teams two years ago.

More likely, B10 schools will just stick with the non rev sports they already have. And will pour more money into those existing sports in order to win ncaa championships.

[Farfromgeneva]

When the Big Ten revealed the details of its upcoming media rights deal less than 24 hours after the Regents meeting, both USC and UCLA were included as key players in the statement. The deal, which is the largest in the history of college athletics, will reportedly be worth $7 to $8 billion across seven years starting July 1, 2023.

UCLA and USC will not be joining the conference until 2024, but they will be earning an even share of the conference revenue the moment they arrive. Payouts are expected to approach $100 million per school annually.

https://www.si.com/college/ucla/.amp/ne ... roadblocks

DocBarrister

there. you finally quoted it properly. conference payouts.

Never understood why multiple folks made it sound like $1Bn/annum/school. That’s silly. Can’t understand business if throwing $1Bn/school/yr out there

[Farfromgeneva]

"But then again, the Big Ten partnering with NBC is exactly what Notre Dame has reportedly been looking for in its quest to remain independent.

CBS Sports reported in July that Notre Dame, in an effort to ensure its independence remains economically viable, is looking to increase the payment it receives from NBC for its exclusive football TV rights from the $22 million it currently receives each year to $75 million:

For NBC to feel comfortable raising Notre Dame's valuation to such a level, it is seeking "shoulder programming" (in this case, games played before and/or after Notre Dame's contests) from a Power Five conference to enhance its college football coverage.

Things are looking good for Irish independence.

The new Big Ten deal creates a similar structure to an NFL Sunday. Content bounces to different stations throughout the day, starting with Fox at noon, followed by CBS at 3:30 and NBC at night. ABC/ESPN swaps out B10 for SEC.

Seems like NBC/ND deal for afternoon games (ET) fits right in with B10 Saturday Night on NBC.

$1B or so divided 16 ways is "only" $62.5 per B10 school.

Worth every penny as they will win all championships — before they even play….

That’s Alabama’s job.

[Farfromgeneva]

I don’t believe enough forethought is being given to the end game.

I and many others believe the end gsme will find D-1 FB will be outside the NCAA in the end.

If true then there would no longer be schollies for it

If so Title IX would see a huge reset and lax could explode eh all B1G schools would have lax teams. Rather than schools having a growing pool of better recruits there would be more competition for recruits

Just my .10

Agreed up to the point that the schools can license their name for money their getting “owning” the program and the downside risk (think arrests, Laurence Phillips/Aaron Hernandez etc) to the brand w loss of control of the franchise is huge. So what your suggesting would be phase 1 and phase 2 will be complete separations. Think that’s 15-20yrs from here to get there.

There no way long term the schools can retain any control without fully controlling the programs.

[Farfromgeneva]

Canada — lots of changes coming, but your scenario likely will not be one of them.

T9 is independent of ncaa status. Harvard mens rowing is a varsity sport but not an ncaa sport. T9 applies. The only thing that would eliminate T9 would be if the football teams were separated completely from the schools. Like a full on pro team that just licenses the brand IP from the school. No one thinks that would ever happen in the B10.

Given where this is all going, I don’t think there is any scenario where lacrosse or any other non revenue sport explodes. Especially on the mens side. And even if T9 was repealed. As an overall trend, non revenue sports are going to be flat or down.

For example, ucla is famous for sending bruins to the Olympics in many non revenue sports. Their large athletic department was on the verge of bankruptcy. They were planning to eliminate many of their Olympic sports. Luckily the B10 Santa Claus arrived in the nick of time.

Look at Stanford. No college has more dough than Stanford. They cut eleven teams two years ago.

More likely, B10 schools will just stick with the non rev sports they already have. And will pour more money into those existing sports in order to win ncaa championships.

Endowments will be down 10-30%. Most technically use June 30 as fiscal year end anyways so it’s in the books already for next school year and we likely will have some pain in Q4 of this year so athletics will be scrutinized more not less in the next 2yrs

[Farfromgeneva]

Relevant to this discussion. Folks should understand Disney and streaming as a business model is under pressure. HBO merged w Comcast and CRO David Zaszlov who came form discovery side killed an already finished, $95mm batgirl movie as a tax write off rather than even dump it in their Max steaming platform. Netflix is hurting. Most content providers are moving back to a bundle offering which is creeping back towards the cable package model. We could easily be seeing this round of contracts being the peak of this money for college (and pro) sports.

Should Disney Get Rid of ESPN? The Debate Returns

The entertainment giant depends on the sports network to fund its streaming expansion, but subscriptions are in decline

Joe FlintAug. 19, 2022 5:30 am ET
Daniel Loeb’s Third Point LLC, which owns a small stake in the entertainment giant, told management in a letter Monday that there is a “strong case to be made” for Disney to part with ESPN, which would result in a company that is “no longer haunted by the specter of cord-cutting,” or consumers canceling their pay-TV subscription in favor of streaming services.

Fewer Americans are getting cable TV—and, by extension, ESPN—every year, but the network remains home to some of the most popular content on TV, particularly as many people no longer watch live programming that isn’t news or sports.

Advertisement - Scroll to Continue

ESPN attracted more prime-time viewers so far this year than any other cable network but Fox Corp.’s FOX -1.08%▼ Fox News, according to Nielsen. And the channel brings in significantly more in fees than any of its rivals: On average, every American with a pay-TV package that features ESPN pays more than $100 a year for access to the network, according to Kagan, a media research group within S&P Global Market Intelligence.

The network currently has 73.2 million subscribers, down from 87.7 million in 2017, according to Kagan, which estimates that number will fall to 60.8 million by 2025. Marc Ganis, president of the consulting firm Sportscorp, expects U.S. cable subscriptions to stabilize around the 50 million mark.

A potential spinoff of ESPN “doesn’t make a lot of sense to me,” said former ESPN Chief Executive Steve Bornstein, who ran ESPN in the 1990s. “I don’t know what problems you are solving.” Besides its flagship channel, ESPN also includes several sister networks and the ESPN+ streaming service.

Disney declined to comment for this article. In its response to Mr. Loeb’s letter earlier this week, the company said it welcomed the views of all investors. Disney’s statement said the company achieved record streaming subscriptions and strong profit growth at its U.S. theme-parks business, but didn’t mention ESPN.

Pat Crakes, a sports-media consultant and former Fox Sports executive, said Disney needs ESPN and other cable assets to fund its streaming business’s losses. The company’s TV networks generated $2.5 billion in operating income during the most recent quarter, more than its thriving parks division, which brought in $2.2 billion. Meanwhile, Disney’s streaming services—which include Disney+, Hulu and ESPN+—lost $1.1 billion.

“Disney cannot give up ESPN while they are still in the process of developing their bundles,” said Mr. Ganis.

Advertisement - Scroll to Continue

In his letter, Mr. Loeb said a stand-alone ESPN could take on some of Disney’s $46 billion debt load.

His most pointed argument was that independence would let ESPN pursue a business it has already embraced: sports betting.

ESPN has marketing partnerships with both DraftKings Inc. and Caesars Entertainment Inc.’s Caesars Sportsbook, and ESPN2 airs a show called “Daily Wager” offering betting insights and tips. On Disney’s earnings call last week, CEO Bob Chapek said the company has had conversations about getting more actively involved in betting itself.

Third Point declined to comment beyond its letter.

Advertisement - Scroll to Continue

Mr. Loeb isn’t the first to suggest jettisoning ESPN. Inside Disney, there have been occasional discussions over the years about where ESPN fits in the future of the company, people familiar with the matter said. However, its contributions to the company’s bottom line outweighed any long-term concerns, they said.


ESPN+ is to carry a single NFL game exclusively during the upcoming season, a first for the streaming service.Photo: Brian Rothmuller/Icon Sportswire/Getty Images
Beyond cord-cutting, the rapid escalation of sports-rights fees has eroded ESPN’s profitability in recent years. Last year, ESPN renewed “Monday Night Football” at a cost of $2.7 billion a season, a 35% increase from its previous deal with the NFL. The network has also indicated it will be aggressive in its efforts to retain rights to the National Basketball Association when that deal expires in three years.

Disney doesn’t break out ESPN’s financial performance, but a former executive estimated the network generates in the neighborhood of $3 billion in earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization annually, and has a valuation of around $25 billion.

Newsletter Sign-up

The 10-Point.

A personal, guided tour to the best scoops and stories every day in The Wall Street Journal.

That’s about half of what ESPN was valued at by analyst Matthew Harrigan in 2014, who at the time projected its Ebitda to be around $4.5 billion. Mr. Harrigan declined to comment.

A Disney executive said that the valuation is significantly higher than $25 billion. Disney and ESPN representatives declined to comment on the unit’s finances.

Disney acquired majority control of ESPN as part of its 1995 purchase of Capital Cities/ABC Inc. At that time, ESPN was the darling of the cable business not only for its live sports but its irreverent attitude in covering it. Anchors such as Chris Berman, Dan Patrick, Keith Olbermann and the late Stuart Scott became household names.

Advertisement - Scroll to Continue

For years, ESPN pretty much had the field to itself and launched sister networks, a magazine and a radio network all while delivering a steady stream of profits to Disney.

These days, ESPN competes for sports content not only with rivals such as Fox Sports and Warner Bros. Discovery Inc.’s TNT and TBS, but with Amazon.com Inc.’s Prime Video and Apple Inc.’s TV+ service, which are also moving aggressively onto ESPN’s turf. The competition continues to drive up the cost of content even as ratings for many major sports stagnate or decline.

The network has shown a willingness to walk away if a sports-rights deal gets too pricey. It recently opted not to keep its share of rights to the Big Ten conference. The Big Ten on Thursday struck a massive new seven-year contract with Fox, CBS and NBC that people familiar with the matter said is worth up to approximately $7.5 billion.

Disney is also investing heavily in its ESPN+ streaming service, which currently has around 23 million subscribers, a gain of more than 50% from the same time last year. Like all TV companies moving into streaming, ESPN is trying to make a compelling direct-to-consumer product without encouraging cord-cutting.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

What potential benefits could you see in an ESPN spinoff? Join the conversation below.

ESPN+ will exclusively carry one NFL game this coming season, a first for the service, on top of its heavy load of Ultimate Fighting Championship bouts, college football, Major League Baseball, professional hockey and golf.

“If you moved a true tier-1 sport over to ESPN+ exclusively, you’d take your pay-TV economics down a lot while not anywhere near recovering those lost economics with streaming,” Mr. Crakes said.

Write to Joe Flint at [email protected]

[wgdsr]

When the Big Ten revealed the details of its upcoming media rights deal less than 24 hours after the Regents meeting, both USC and UCLA were included as key players in the statement. The deal, which is the largest in the history of college athletics, will reportedly be worth $7 to $8 billion across seven years starting July 1, 2023.

UCLA and USC will not be joining the conference until 2024, but they will be earning an even share of the conference revenue the moment they arrive. Payouts are expected to approach $100 million per school annually.

https://www.si.com/college/ucla/.amp/ne ... roadblocks

DocBarrister

there. you finally quoted it properly. conference payouts.

What’s your point?

Because your post does not have one.

DocBarrister

it's pretty easy, doc. you have been quoting, and saying... that their media payout alone will be $100 million per school for months, and are picking it back up here again.

it won't be. unless they get some inflation/market-adjusted number @10 billion (still short) instead of the widely quoted 7-8.

even backloaded. say they did 500m each of the first 2 years, then did 6.5 over the next 5. that's 81 per. you continue to be either doddering, deceitful or simply unable to do math. 3 billion doesn't just magically appear. so you then refuse to discern the difference between media payout and conference payout without taking a breath and calling for world domination.

to top it off, you use as sources those that have no idea what they're doing.... and then draw conclusions that those other players and conferences are in deep doo doo. the ridiculous thing is you don't need to exaggerate and be constantly corrected. the b1g's in good shape.

what happens to your credibility when you do this just once at the bargaining table or in court?

[DocBarrister]

When the Big Ten revealed the details of its upcoming media rights deal less than 24 hours after the Regents meeting, both USC and UCLA were included as key players in the statement. The deal, which is the largest in the history of college athletics, will reportedly be worth $7 to $8 billion across seven years starting July 1, 2023.

UCLA and USC will not be joining the conference until 2024, but they will be earning an even share of the conference revenue the moment they arrive. Payouts are expected to approach $100 million per school annually.

https://www.si.com/college/ucla/.amp/ne ... roadblocks

DocBarrister

there. you finally quoted it properly. conference payouts.

What’s your point?

Because your post does not have one.

DocBarrister

it's pretty easy, doc. you have been quoting, and saying... that their media payout alone will be $100 million per school for months, and are picking it back up here again.

it won't be. unless they get some inflation/market-adjusted number @10 billion (still short) instead of the widely quoted 7-8.

even backloaded. say they did 500m each of the first 2 years, then did 6.5 over the next 5. that's 81 per. you continue to be either doddering, deceitful or simply unable to do math. 3 billion doesn't just magically appear. so you then refuse to discern the difference between media payout and conference payout without taking a breath and calling for world domination.

to top it off, you use as sources those that have no idea what they're doing.... and then draw conclusions that those other players and conferences are in deep doo doo. the ridiculous thing is you don't need to exaggerate and be constantly corrected. the b1g's in good shape.

what happens to your credibility when you do this just once at the bargaining table or in court?

Do you know how stupid your comments are when you don’t even know the details of the contracts involved?

I am quoting the reports of the sports press. They probably don’t know all the details either, but I am fairly certain they know more than you.

Weird ….

DocBarrister

[wgdsr]

When the Big Ten revealed the details of its upcoming media rights deal less than 24 hours after the Regents meeting, both USC and UCLA were included as key players in the statement. The deal, which is the largest in the history of college athletics, will reportedly be worth $7 to $8 billion across seven years starting July 1, 2023.

UCLA and USC will not be joining the conference until 2024, but they will be earning an even share of the conference revenue the moment they arrive. Payouts are expected to approach $100 million per school annually.

https://www.si.com/college/ucla/.amp/ne ... roadblocks

DocBarrister

there. you finally quoted it properly. conference payouts.

What’s your point?

Because your post does not have one.

DocBarrister

it's pretty easy, doc. you have been quoting, and saying... that their media payout alone will be $100 million per school for months, and are picking it back up here again.

it won't be. unless they get some inflation/market-adjusted number @10 billion (still short) instead of the widely quoted 7-8.

even backloaded. say they did 500m each of the first 2 years, then did 6.5 over the next 5. that's 81 per. you continue to be either doddering, deceitful or simply unable to do math. 3 billion doesn't just magically appear. so you then refuse to discern the difference between media payout and conference payout without taking a breath and calling for world domination.

to top it off, you use as sources those that have no idea what they're doing.... and then draw conclusions that those other players and conferences are in deep doo doo. the ridiculous thing is you don't need to exaggerate and be constantly corrected. the b1g's in good shape.

what happens to your credibility when you do this just once at the bargaining table or in court?

Do you know how stupid your comments are when you don’t even know the details of the contracts involved?

I am quoting the reports of the sports press. They probably don’t know all the details either, but I am fairly certain they know more than you.

Weird ….

DocBarrister

and then you not only quote "the action network" as fact and lob on your own definitive "this is how it is"!!! oh, the irony!

how about this? your prediction of $100 million per year, per school... for next contract... was only off by $4 billion!!! great job!

[DocBarrister]

When the Big Ten revealed the details of its upcoming media rights deal less than 24 hours after the Regents meeting, both USC and UCLA were included as key players in the statement. The deal, which is the largest in the history of college athletics, will reportedly be worth $7 to $8 billion across seven years starting July 1, 2023.

UCLA and USC will not be joining the conference until 2024, but they will be earning an even share of the conference revenue the moment they arrive. Payouts are expected to approach $100 million per school annually.

https://www.si.com/college/ucla/.amp/ne ... roadblocks

DocBarrister

there. you finally quoted it properly. conference payouts.

What’s your point?

Because your post does not have one.

DocBarrister

it's pretty easy, doc. you have been quoting, and saying... that their media payout alone will be $100 million per school for months, and are picking it back up here again.

it won't be. unless they get some inflation/market-adjusted number @10 billion (still short) instead of the widely quoted 7-8.

even backloaded. say they did 500m each of the first 2 years, then did 6.5 over the next 5. that's 81 per. you continue to be either doddering, deceitful or simply unable to do math. 3 billion doesn't just magically appear. so you then refuse to discern the difference between media payout and conference payout without taking a breath and calling for world domination.

to top it off, you use as sources those that have no idea what they're doing.... and then draw conclusions that those other players and conferences are in deep doo doo. the ridiculous thing is you don't need to exaggerate and be constantly corrected. the b1g's in good shape.

what happens to your credibility when you do this just once at the bargaining table or in court?

By the way, you are not even considering the money from BTN. When the deal goes in full effect, BTN will broadcast up to 50 games a season, which is actually more games than Fox, CBS, or NBC will broadcast individually each season. The $1+ billion number reportedly doesn’t include BTN money.

Truthfully, we probably overstated ESPN’s position then. But the Big Ten broke its hegemony on college sports — crucially, college football — as we expected it would, when the league announced Thursday a seven-year, three-network media rights package that will pay more than $1 billion annually, and does not include ESPN.

When combined with Big Ten Network revenues, annual per-school distributions are expected to push, if not pass, $100 million.

https://www.indystar.com/story/sports/c ... 409726007/

DocBarrister

[DocBarrister]

When the Big Ten revealed the details of its upcoming media rights deal less than 24 hours after the Regents meeting, both USC and UCLA were included as key players in the statement. The deal, which is the largest in the history of college athletics, will reportedly be worth $7 to $8 billion across seven years starting July 1, 2023.

UCLA and USC will not be joining the conference until 2024, but they will be earning an even share of the conference revenue the moment they arrive. Payouts are expected to approach $100 million per school annually.

https://www.si.com/college/ucla/.amp/ne ... roadblocks

DocBarrister

there. you finally quoted it properly. conference payouts.

What’s your point?

Because your post does not have one.

DocBarrister

it's pretty easy, doc. you have been quoting, and saying... that their media payout alone will be $100 million per school for months, and are picking it back up here again.

it won't be. unless they get some inflation/market-adjusted number @10 billion (still short) instead of the widely quoted 7-8.

even backloaded. say they did 500m each of the first 2 years, then did 6.5 over the next 5. that's 81 per. you continue to be either doddering, deceitful or simply unable to do math. 3 billion doesn't just magically appear. so you then refuse to discern the difference between media payout and conference payout without taking a breath and calling for world domination.

to top it off, you use as sources those that have no idea what they're doing.... and then draw conclusions that those other players and conferences are in deep doo doo. the ridiculous thing is you don't need to exaggerate and be constantly corrected. the b1g's in good shape.

what happens to your credibility when you do this just once at the bargaining table or in court?

Do you know how stupid your comments are when you don’t even know the details of the contracts involved?

I am quoting the reports of the sports press. They probably don’t know all the details either, but I am fairly certain they know more than you.

Weird ….

DocBarrister

and then you not only quote "the action network" as fact and lob on your own definitive "this is how it is"!!! oh, the irony!

how about this? your prediction of $100 million per year, per school... for next contract... was only off by $4 billion!!! great job!

See, that’s the really weird thing about your comments … how on Earth is $100 million per year my prediction?

That is the figure being reported in the press. Why are you being weird and attributing that number to me?

You’re engaging in a bizarre, weird form of trolling. You don’t like what’s being reported in the sports press, so you’re taking it out on me.

Weird ….

DocBarrister

[wgdsr]

When the Big Ten revealed the details of its upcoming media rights deal less than 24 hours after the Regents meeting, both USC and UCLA were included as key players in the statement. The deal, which is the largest in the history of college athletics, will reportedly be worth $7 to $8 billion across seven years starting July 1, 2023.

UCLA and USC will not be joining the conference until 2024, but they will be earning an even share of the conference revenue the moment they arrive. Payouts are expected to approach $100 million per school annually.

https://www.si.com/college/ucla/.amp/ne ... roadblocks

DocBarrister

there. you finally quoted it properly. conference payouts.

What’s your point?

Because your post does not have one.

DocBarrister

it's pretty easy, doc. you have been quoting, and saying... that their media payout alone will be $100 million per school for months, and are picking it back up here again.

it won't be. unless they get some inflation/market-adjusted number @10 billion (still short) instead of the widely quoted 7-8.

even backloaded. say they did 500m each of the first 2 years, then did 6.5 over the next 5. that's 81 per. you continue to be either doddering, deceitful or simply unable to do math. 3 billion doesn't just magically appear. so you then refuse to discern the difference between media payout and conference payout without taking a breath and calling for world domination.

to top it off, you use as sources those that have no idea what they're doing.... and then draw conclusions that those other players and conferences are in deep doo doo. the ridiculous thing is you don't need to exaggerate and be constantly corrected. the b1g's in good shape.

what happens to your credibility when you do this just once at the bargaining table or in court?

Do you know how stupid your comments are when you don’t even know the details of the contracts involved?

I am quoting the reports of the sports press. They probably don’t know all the details either, but I am fairly certain they know more than you.

Weird ….

DocBarrister

and then you not only quote "the action network" as fact and lob on your own definitive "this is how it is"!!! oh, the irony!

how about this? your prediction of $100 million per year, per school... for next contract... was only off by $4 billion!!! great job!

See, that’s the really weird thing about your comments … how on Earth is $100 million per year my prediction?

That is the figure being reported in the press. Why are you being weird and attributing that number to me?

You’re engaging in a bizarre, weird form of trolling. You don’t like what’s being reported in the sports press, so you’re taking it out on me.

Weird ….

DocBarrister

no one is trolling you. you troll yourself. again, you either refuse to "do your homework", or bring up "action network" etc. vs legit sources... in a way to troll others.

and again... it's dumb because the b1g's crushing it. $$ wise, anyway.

i don't mind in the least your "trolling" of acc everything with respect to this stuff because you give so much fodder by being wrong and with your misinformation.

what do you think cj stroud and the penn state guy think of the new deals? we know what smith thinks... they get $$, he's out:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/n ... 841167001/

if you make me share links, i'm sharing mcpaper.

[InsiderRoll]

Hearing some strong chatter from people inside ACC athletic departments that UVA, UNC, FSU and Clemson are likely heading to the SEC. If that does come about then then we could see ACC lacrosse fizzle out. Obviously they don’t have an AQ so it doesn’t really effect them but it would be sad to see the ACC no longer sponsor lacrosse.

[a fan]

what do you think cj stroud and the penn state guy think of the new deals? we know what smith thinks... they get $$, he's out:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/n ... 841167001/

“Do we do more down the road? Possibly,” Smith said. “And that will be discussed, but not in the form of pay-for-play. Otherwise, I'm out.”

Smith, naturally, has a salary of $1.5 million per year. But giving $50k to each out of state player at O State one penny more than tuition, room, and board is a bridge too far Smith.

Boy, what a moral guy.

Said it before, and I'll say it again: if you want to be amateur, great. Sign me up, and apply the math to everyone involved.

This would mean that you cap pay for all Athletics Department employees at out of state room, board, and tuition.

How happy would Mr. Morals here be with a $50k per year salary to adhere to "amateur principles" that he's pretending to care about?

I have NO CLUE why kids at these schools aren't suing for wages after reading the Alston decision, and after seeing this epic TV deals.