This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Sankey understands well. Kramer taught him. All SEC teams have classes on NIL tax implications. That’s standard today.
Players want to get paid as much as possible with total freedom of movement and the leverage that grants.
Agree. The issues are actually pretty simple as you assert, but the resolution is several steps away, choppy steps.
www.nytimes.com
There is nothing new here, Ross. In house collectives and acceleration toward the P2 are good things IMO.
Only if you mean acceleration toward P2 is going to include more realignment and consolidation of current "P4". Increasing the P2 from 34 to ~48 total programs.
Agree, I don’t think it’s just 34. And I don’t think it’s 64. And I don’t think Vandy, Rutgers, etc get cut. I think there is room for CU in this group especially with Prime.
How does the money work for adding another 14-20 schools, though? I assume streamers will have to get involved to help make up the difference that NBC, CBS, FOX and ESPN can't/aren't willing
Legit question.
I'm not expecting all revenues across the P2 to be equal in an expanded format, but I do expect the media rights revenue to be at least in the same ball park across all programs. Maybe a lower initial amount for new members that gradually increases over time, or some kind of a base revenue distribution for all programs with extra distributions to programs based on ratings, success, etc.
Agree. Gnarly issues ahead. I hope it all works. Come August, we’ll change our focus.
The best you can probably hope for is a sliding scale for revenues, like I mentioned above. There's reason for the blue bloods of the sport to agree to P2 expansion, but only to a certain point and as long as they are still unquestionably making more money than most other programs.
That is not fair play, the Dallas Cowboys do not get to spend another $100M to improve the team
College football has always been the least equitable sport out there. I think the networks would like to emulate the NFL as much as possible, but they only control so much. Why would Alabama, Ohio State, Georgia, Texas, Oregon, Michigan, LSU, OU, etc agree to be compensated the same as Rutgers, Vanderbilt, Northwestern, Illinois, Maryland, etc?
They do not have to be COMPENSATED the same, but they must have the same Hard Salary Cap, so that as you build your teams, it is a fair fight. You can make more money, and you can build more facilities, and you can pay more white guys to be your coaches, but keep the roster building equal.
There will be a hard salary cap, just like there has been ($0), and now it's $20m/year. However, there are still third party collectives willing to give money to recruits outside of that, so rich programs will circumvent that salary cap to entice players to come to their school. The college environment is unique in that there are wealthy donors willing to donate large sums of money as tax write offs. That simply isn't the case in professional sports, not to mention the pros pay their elite players far more than elite college players make, so elite HS/College players can be enticed by some booster throwing an extra $1m at them.
Unequal media rights payments to teams will surely be discussed in the next TV deal. I’m not sure it happens in the next cycle though, especially if the P2 can skim the best 14 of the little 2 to make a 48 team super conference with 2 leagues, 4 divisions, play only within p2, their own TV and playoff deals, unions, CBA, caps, medical care, etc. Even the NFL knows the value of smaller markets and weak opponents.
This. A cap is an essential part of the CBA. But no union is going to settle for 22 percent of revs like present in the House settlement. I give you cap, you share more money.
But that's exactly why I think unequal media rights payments will have to be part of a new super conference set up. The pie will have to grow much larger to support 14 new teams, but the money probably isn't there to add 14 new members at a pro rata basis and the top 20% aren't going to take a pay cut to a level set payout.
That is a fail to begin with, they must agree to play together
Fair points. I see it differently.
right after The Dobbs ruling too.
Id agree. I would expect that we will have multiple olympic centers open by the USOC so that elite high school players in those sports have somewhere to go.
Football programs being spun off from direct/official University affiliation, while maintaining a licensing agreement for the name, logos, facility usage, etc is far more likely than your scenario. There is too much money in college football, and that money is only there if there is some affiliation with the Universities themselves. Minor league football has never worked because fans don't care about them, and that isn't going to change.I really have to LOL at asking congress to sh*t on female taxpayer citizens rights to make a bunch of “football only” men happy
Some of you have daughters as well.
Whats going to happen is probably 80% of schools opt out of paying because they dont have the TV revenue. Esp if courts rule all players are paid equally. The remaining 20% try to join some kind of super conference where pay is allowed. The TV money then concentrates here at the sacrifice of the 80%. Some of the 20% drop out later shrinking the size further. If the 80-85% of schools that opt out cant get TV money they drop sports or just have club teams.
The NFL sees their pipeline implode and buys the XFL or USFL or whatever its called and starts a minor league and takes players directly similar to baseball.
