College Sports (Football)

Status
Not open for further replies.
#26      
Dkayak
fuddrules said:
No it's not. OSU already has a vastly larger budget than Illinois. OSU has 36? teams to support and Illinois has 21? Michigan 29?

Something like that.

OSU getting the same amount as Illinois puts them at a massive disadvantage.

The world is not ending, folks. It'll be OK.
Click to expand...
This would be a very good argument if the money was spread evenly across all teams. It falls apart when 1-2 sports consume the lion’s share at each school.

B1G isn’t cutting this deal to shore up fencing programs and the investors aren’t expecting to make a good return on water polo. Football and basketball generate virtually all of the revenue, so they’ll receive the vast majority of the investment. That’s just business.
 
Last edited:
#27      
sbillini
fuddrules said:
Or he's right and you're wrong?
Click to expand...

I'm assuming by "right and wrong" you mean whether this deal is effectively an offensive move by UofI DIA (ie will generate more revenue than cost in the long run) or defensive (JW is supporting it because he feels like he has to given the financial situation and the direction of college football economics).

In 95% of situations (coaching hires, conference alignment, fund raising, etc) i would certainly give JW the benefit of the doubt because he has more expertise than I do in those areas. When it comes to business deals like this one, I'm not in the "i'm sure he is more shrewd in this than i am" boat. A big part of my job is to evaluate deals like this for a living. After a while, you get a sense of the underlying drivers and motivations. I've already posted before on what motivations typically drives deals like this, so I won't rehash here. But ultimately, the more i think about it, the more it seems like it's a defensive move vs offensive. Doing this deal right after you have to start paying players directly while, coincidentally, you just signed a large TV contract, screams opportunistic way to raise cash when you need it most. I originally thought it was a "sell while your stock is high" approach, but the more I think about it, the more it seems more like "the world is changing and we need cash now to manage it". Ther'es a high risk of "kicking the can down the road" dynamic here and, ultimately, it seems like a defensive move (you can look at my post on implied growth rates on this deal, and it seems like the conference is either pessimistic on growth/willing to sell cheap or UC Investments is incompetent, which I think is unlikely). The fact that UIUC DIA is one of the most indebted programs in the Big Ten makes the cash in opportunity even more appealing, despite the likely negative longer-term ramifications.
 
#28      
Grandpa
15 schools would be getting screwed horribly. Ohio State spends more money than anyone else for football, so the rest of the league should give them even more?
 
#29      
the juiceman cometh
fuddrules said:
Josh Whitman thinks so as well.
Click to expand...
fuddrules said:
Or he's right and you're wrong?
Click to expand...
fuddrules said:
No it's not. OSU already has a vastly larger budget than Illinois. OSU has 36? teams to support and Illinois has 21? Michigan 29?

Something like that.

OSU getting the same amount as Illinois puts them at a massive disadvantage.

The world is not ending, folks. It'll be OK.
Click to expand...
fuddrules said:
If 16 of the 18 teams are behind this and the only 2 that aren't are the whiniest stuck up bitches in the conference, it's not all bad.
Click to expand...
1000017972.jpg
 
#30      
fuddrules
Dkayak said:
This would be a very good argument if the money was spread evenly across all teams. It falls apart when 1-2 sports consume the lion’s share at each school.

B1G isn’t cutting this deal to shore up fencing programs and the investors aren’t expecting to make a good return on water polo. Football and basketball generate virtually all of the revenue, so they’ll receive the vast majority of the investment. That’s just business.
Click to expand...

Sure, then go to the facts that Illinois has rode the coattails of OSU football for a long long time. That's a fact. 2026 isn't impressed with 1920's & 1950's football.

If Illinois can pay Altmyer and Jacas more than Clayton Leonard, why should OSU be paid equivalent as everyone else? As BB said, this isn't charity when it comes to his roster building. The same applies to the B1G programs as well.

You can read the Illinois arrogance in this thread. It's tough for the arrogant to deal with.
 
Last edited:
#31      
Illini in Italy
fuddrules said:
No it's not. OSU already has a vastly larger budget than Illinois. OSU has 36? teams to support and Illinois has 21? Michigan 29?

Something like that.

OSU getting the same amount as Illinois puts them at a massive disadvantage.

The world is not ending, folks. It'll be OK.
Click to expand...
Remain Calm All Is Well GIF
 
#32      
the juiceman cometh
fuddrules said:
Sure, then go to the facts that Illinois has rode the coattails of OSU football for a long long time. That's fact. 2026 isn't impressed with 1920's & 1950's football.

If Illinois can pay Altmyer and Jacas more than Clayton Leonard, why should OSU be paid equivalent as everyone else? As BB said, this isn't charity when it comes to his roster building. The same applies to the B1G programs as well.
Click to expand...
We're talking about revenue brought in from the Conference. OSU still keeps their merchandise revenue, their ticket revenue, their concessions etc. But without the rest of us, OSU isn't playing in a Conference, and doesn't have the organization of a conference to negotiate media deals and lobby for CFP structure etc.

And this is about the strength of the Conference, which does benefit OSU. If the BIG wants to further advantage OSU and Michigan (because they already operate at an advantage) then let's see how popular a product we end up with when those two are running away with the league every year, like it's La Liga or something. SEC, which already claims to be a stronger league top to bottom (read - more parity) will thrive.
 
#33      
fuddrules
the juiceman cometh said:
We're talking about revenue brought in from the Conference. OSU still keeps their merchandise revenue, their ticket revenue, their concessions etc. But without the rest of us, OSU isn't playing in a Conference, and doesn't have the organization of a conference to negotiate media deals and lobby for CFP structure etc.

And this is about the strength of the Conference, which does benefit OSU. If the BIG wants to further advantage OSU and Michigan (because they already operate at an advantage) then let's see how popular a product we end up with when those two are running away with the league every year, like it's La Liga or something. SEC, which already claims to be a stronger league top to bottom (read - more parity) will thrive.
Click to expand...
Deal with it. It's coming.
 
#35      
Dkayak
fuddrules said:
Sure, then go to the facts that Illinois has rode the coattails of OSU football for a long long time. That's a fact. 2026 isn't impressed with 1920's & 1950's football.

If Illinois can pay Altmyer and Jacas more than Clayton Leonard, why should OSU be paid equivalent as everyone else? As BB said, this isn't charity when it comes to his roster building. The same applies to the B1G programs as well.

You can read the Illinois arrogance in this thread. It's tough for the arrogant to deal with.
Click to expand...
Seems like you’re now shifting your argument from number of programs supported, effectively just 2 at each school, to payment per athlete or history? I don’t follow this new line of reasoning but it seems peripheral to the main concern voiced on this thread.

Fundamental competitive fairness is the thing. I don’t sense any Illini arrogance, just concern for tilting the playing field against us as well as the other 14 lesser schools.

This deal doesn’t just lock in the big spenders’ current financial advantage. It fuels acceleration of the gap over time as their success generates more revenue, allowing them to buy and attract even more talent, bringing more success, and so on. The result is a sub-conference of “NFL Light” within the 18 team conference, as described by @the juiceman cometh above. Longer term it undermines the B1G vs the SEC.

Maybe B1G sees it as a way to grow a few super teams to dominate the CFP? The risk is fans of the underfunded teams will see the growing inequity, sense the futility, and move on to other interests. The NFL recognized the threat and addressed it with salary caps, while the B1G and NCAA seem either blind to the risk or legally paralyzed.

Spend all you like on facilities and even on staff, but please find a way to cap each team’s player salary pool to avoid an accelerated concentration of talent, further tilting an already uneven playing field. Can anyone come up with an argument against a salary cap?
 
Last edited:
#36      
Pikeillinifan
Dkayak said:
Can anyone come up with an argument against a salary cap?
Click to expand...
Nobody can, unless the goal is to create a system that has 6-8 teams with a chance to win it all, with a subset of competitive teams that may be able to upset one of those 5-6 on occasion (but never win it all), followed by a bunch of also-rans.

Professional sports want a reasonably level playing field for a reason: ratings will eventually decline, media deals will falter, and we will be right back where we started. I know, professional sports have dynasties and whatnot, but you can put a salary cap in place that many teams cannot reach; at least, it gives some hope to all.

I'm sure there are some reasons people think this is a good deal, and at this point, if Illinois can be in the playoff talks (even as a 10-12 seed) every year or two, I guess it's 100x better than where we've been over the past 30+ years. That all said, this doesn't make any sense, especially locking things in for 15 or so years.
 
#38      
Illini92and96
Battle89 said:
Fudd is calling people arrogant here and elitist in other threads. Just likes to argue I guess (and name-call when arguments fail).
Click to expand...

Well, the user name checks out.​

​

Noun​

Fudd (plural Fudds)

  1. (derogatory) A gun-owner who supports traditional hunting guns but favors gun control for other guns such as handguns or tactical rifles.
  2. (derogatory) A bumbling and ill-educated person.
  3. (skiing) A type of fat ski that flares out at the ends.
 
#41      
Pikeillinifan
It's funny; when I first read about this possibility, I figured that once the details came out, we'd see it was a decent deal and the structure made sense for all. But as the details have come out, it's as bad, or as 'not good' for college football as many thought when the rumblings started.

As much as I'd love to see the new South Horseshoe built, along with other infrastructure improvements, I'd rather have none of them if this is the path the B1G is taking to get there.

At some point, this must be sustainable and have some semblance of equality for all institutions (at least on a conference level). Let schools generate extra revenue through parking, concessions, donations, and other advertising channels outside of conference media deals, etc. However, any unequal revenue sharing and selling of ownership is just the first step into the abyss.
 
#42      
Curbelo Fanboy
Good luck getting a 50/50 call in Columbus if this goes thru. As is, the "chosen few" seem to get the whistles or flags their way when it really matters. Once the outside money comes in & is slanted to the upper crust programs those providing said $ will begin to have influence. It's a slippery slope from which it will hard if not impossible to recover.
 
#43      
Pikeillinifan
Mr. Tibbs said:
Pettiti's, and other AD's (esp JW's) silence on this is very strange
Click to expand...
This is really the interesting part about this (among many others), with the skepticism and noise surrounding things, one would think there would be some talking points by ADs in favor, as well as the B1G Commissioner, but it's been total silence.
 
#45      
the juiceman cometh
Pikeillinifan said:
I missed that section too - and the media rights and other revenue payouts will be tiered too, with most of us getting 5% and OSU, Michigan and Penn State getting about 5.5%. There are some kind of tiers for high performing basketball teams (as long as football performs too).

Just seems like such a bad, bad idea and will make an uneven playing field worse. Such a shortsighted decision, and there is a reason pro sports have salary caps - this is not for the good of the sport.
Click to expand...
And there's the thing that really gets me the more I think about it.

Essentially, with 18 teams, if every team had an equal share we're talking about each team getting 5.56% of the pie.

In order to fund this up-front payment, most of the league is giving up a portion of that and taking just 5% instead (apparently some may also take less than that). OSU, Michigan, and PSU are basically giving up next to nothing (0.06%), BUT they're also getting a bigger up front payment (as are apparently newcomers USC and Oregon, somewhere in between the "legacy" programs and everyone else, for some reason).

Essentially, this plan is subsidized by the Have Nots, for the benefit of the Haves. The more I look at this, the more I hate it.
 
#46      
Dkayak
Pikeillinifan said:
This is really the interesting part about this (among many others), with the skepticism and noise surrounding things, one would think there would be some talking points by ADs in favor, as well as the B1G Commissioner, but it's been total silence.
Click to expand...
I assume the AD’s recognize their role is limited to advising the University boards, who are the decision-makers. Going public with your private recommendations is a terrible career move.
 
#47      
sbillini
sounds like AD's haven't been doing much advising to the boards either...
 
#48      
Mr. Tibbs
Dkayak said:
I assume the AD’s recognize their role is limited to advising the University boards, who are the decision-makers. Going public with your private recommendations is a terrible career move.
Click to expand...
not recommendations , really

but an overall explanation of both sides of the issue to the fanbase , would be nice

there are ways to explain things without being judgy or making it seem like what side you are on

it’s what PR people are for
 
Last edited:
#50      
WeWillWhen
Seems rather clear with the benefit of hindsight that Tamas benefitted his first couple years from the lingering effect and recruiting of Hambly.

That said, this isn't an easy job. It is going to be tough to get back to national relevance playing in the tougher/expanded B1G and with B-list (I'm being charitable) facilities. If the private equity deal goes through, will Josh use a big chunk of that money to fund the long-sought new facility for Volleyball/Gymnastics/Wrestling?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back