exswoo

So working backwards to calculate payouts: BTN 2012 Total Revenue = $262M Big Ten Conference BTN Ownership % = 49% Illinois 2012 dividend (Payout) from BTN = $6.6M Estimated Big Ten Conference payout = $6.6 x 12 = $79.2M (the actual number is smaller since we know that Nebraska took in a smaller share) $262M * 49% = $128.38M 79.2 / 128.38 = 61.7% So about 39% of BTN revenues is currently being re-invested into the channel with the rest being paid out to the shareholders (the schools) currently. This percentage is expected to go down over time but it's hard to know for sure for the moment. Doing some simple modeling... Estimated BTN payout in 2017 pre re-investment (100% payout) : $408M * 49% /14 = $14.28M 80% payout = $11.42M 61.7% payout = $8.81M ...so a reasonable estimate would put it around the $10M range per school assuming BTN can hit those revenue numbers.

I'm a bit surprised as well - I thought there would be at least one after the rule change. The Michigan State game probably would've been a good candidate. That said, it looks like this season we will have a total of 18 prime time games, which is much higher than last year's 14. Per team break down : Iowa - 0 Indiana - 2 Illinois - 2 Michigan - 2 Michigan State - 1 Minnesota - 1 Nebraska - 2 Northwestern - 3 Ohio State - 3 Penn State - 3 Purdue - 1 Wisconsin - 1

The East/West thing makes sense. Wisconsin has no national championships but we have been a major player for most of the past 20 years. If we'd had Martinez, we'd have beaten Stanford... Iowa is also strong. In today's terms, they are the equal of Penn State. Without the scandal. Minnesota has 6 national championships, though the program is in a dormant phase. But who knows... maybe they can become decent. Illinois has Red Grange, one of the greatest football players of all time at any level. They also won a couple of NCs and though not consistently good, now and then they recruit their state well and have the ability to win 10 games. Purdue... there is sporadic history there. they will struggle in the West most years. Northwestern -- they finally won a bowl game and have been competitive over most of the last 10-15 years. they will never beat the huskers when the huskers are good, but they will compete with you most other years. I think you Big 10 people put too much emphasis on the past and somehow try to spin it like it's relevant today. It's not. Only Wisc and NW will probably be our toughest teams to play. The Leaders/Legends division were more competively balanced. You know what my friend, I think we Husker fans are wildly guilty of what you just said --- we put too much emphasis on the past and spin it as though it were relevant today. Today, no one in the B1G is relevant... except perhaps OSU --- and just how relevant remains to be seen. But NU, Wisconsin and Michigan basically matter as football programs only to their fans... to the rest of the nation's general college football fans, as they think in view of the national landscape of college football... NU and Michigan are nowhere in view (though seen as historic programs of past excellence) and Wisconsin is simply nowhere in view at all. That is not to say these programs have not accomplished anything recently --- but only that in terms of the national picture...all of these programs are not part of the picture. I understand the sentiment but I feel like that's a bit extreme. If that is seriously your view on CFB, you're essentially saying that only the teams in the SEC title hunt is part of the national picture. The past 7 years has made every conference that's not the SEC look bad in the post season, but I don't think the gap is that big at all. We'll see what happens in the next few years but I'm confident that the reign will not be a permanent one.

If it's just OU I wouldn't say never if that pulled in Texas. I doubt the 2 would be willing to jump ship without taking a chunk of their fiefdom with them though.

A shame - but reading through the article it sounds like the series won't go away entirely.

Probably that'll be the length of a full rotation of the schedule. In an even scheduling scheme and assuming a home/home + 2 one off games every year you'll have a full rotation every 14 years (although everyone will play each other at least once every 4 years) - that they plan on matching the top teams in each division more often will mean that it'll take a bit longer to do a home/home with every team. For Nebraska that should be a great news since that means that you'll be playing Michigan, Penn State and Ohio State a lot more often than Rutgers/Maryland.

I don't disagree with you (although I feel like Kentucky is more Southern than Midwestern) - however the identity of the ACC has been the ol' boys club of the Southern Elite. If that ever goes away, then schools in the ACC will be in a situation like the BXII - a group of schools at each others throats but held together by necessity more so than fit.

Steven Bench ‏@SBench12 I've decided to leave Penn State and go to a school that will give me the opportunity to compete for the QB spot and reach regardless of my full potential

GoRs are only in place for another decade unless they renew before other schools get wandering eyes - it's not a permanent solution by any means.

The best shot of Big Ten smoothly integrating ACC schools is for those areas to 'un-Southernize'. That's pretty much what happened to Maryland the past 5 decades due to all the implants that flocked to the DC area and Northern Virginia has more in common with NY and the Midwest than the deep South. Unfortunately, this is a pretty slow process and I think the only likely state to 'flip' is Virginia a decade or two down the road. Some other states have pockets of 'Northernness' to them (Atlanta, Miami, Research Triangle Park) but I doubt that'll be enough to push anyone out of a conference. Of course, I suppose there's some chance that Pitt, Syracuse, and BC brings about a culture change to the ACC but uh...I wouldn't bet on it.

Only protected crossover will be Purdue - IU. I think the expectation from the West would be expect at least one of Michigan/OSU/Penn State every year + 2 others.

My personal take on expansion for the Big Ten has been that it would be more strategic for them to pick off the Big 12 (Ideally OU, KU, and Texas...and not sure about the last school, Mizzou if possible?) and 'enclose' the Southern states between the ACC and SEC. I really do think that the cultural differences between the Southern states and the rest of the country will cause more headaches than it's worth for a conference that values stability like the Big Ten. While that means giving up some of the recruiting access of the talent rich South, that is tampered by the large number of schools that compete in that footprint (30.5 schools between the ACC, SEC, and AAC [just counting USF and UCF here]..), an expanded Big Ten will be the defacto game in town for the all the non-Southern states aside from the West coast - which should make for plenty of talent to draw from. The only thing problem here is that the non-college sports fan in me would prefer my alma mater be associated with the likes of UVA and UNC over anything the Big XII remnants offer...Texas excepted. ...ah well. I guess we'll see what happens in a few years!

According to the press release the GoR was effective immediately - the WV types are claiming that they have until July but I won't believe it until I see it. As for future expansion, this in a way helps the Big Ten - the signs that the leadership was giving was that they wanted to put the brakes on expansion for a few years to digest Maryland and Rutgers while seeing if they can shake away some of the bigger schools...by the ACC signing the GoR, everyone gets about a decade of stability until it becomes time to renew...and both the Big XII and ACC GoRs expire within a year or so of each other. BTW Woody, I thought you said that UVA to the Big Ten was a done deal?

Purdue or Indiana may start getting hot, but I doubt it'll be a permanent move and it's doubtful that both teams will be strong at the same time, especially since they are located in the same state and share the same recruiting base. Indiana, in particular, has been long been the basement football team of the Big Ten, with only 2 Big Ten Championships and 3 Bowl wins over the past 120 years. \ You can probably build stronger cases for the revival of pretty much any other bottom tier FB program than Indiana - at least Rutgers, Illinois, and Maryland have strong recruiting bases and Minnesota has the right mentality (and past glory years).

Besides, there is no football conference called the Big East, so worst case they will think that the Big Ten has a bunch of catholic schools that play basketball

The problem with the protected crossovers is that it unbalances the division schedule long term by penciling in a permanent opponent. Back in the old setup Michigan had the hardest path of going through the Legends + OSU every year (although I realize that Neb had a harder path the first two years due to you guys getting Wisconsin + Osu and Penn state rotated in, although it lets up in 2013 and 2014). If they did protect the Minnesota game, the situation will be flipped with Michigan getting a weak opponent every year while the rest of the East will have harder match ups (on average). Not having protected games is the only way to guarantee a balanced schedule over the long run - Indiana/Purdue is getting a break by the crossover, but they aren't expected to compete for a title every year so it's not as harmful to protect that game.

I think the only surprise from the final division split was MSU being in the East - I was pretty sure that they would be pushed West to help balance out the divisions. Then again, if that's the price to pay to not have protected crossovers then it's probably for the best for everyone.

It's actually better for all teams involved. It guarantees all teams in the West division at least one of Michigan/OSU/Penn State every year...except for PU who's probably happy to keep the rivalry game going anyway. It also resolves the unbalanced schedules that existed in the old alignment where Michigan, Nebraska, MSU, OSU, Wisky and Penn State played tougher schedules than the rest of the conference due to the protected cross-over games

It may or may not be true but the person in question who reported this has gotten multiple things wrong in the past so until more legit journalists pick it up you won't see much talk regarding this.

Big Ten's in an interesting situation - culturally going Southwest into Big 12 country will be a better fit but none of the schools except for Texas is an academic match (both Kansas and Mizzou are middling AAU schools). Going Southeast to ACC country is more appealing from an academic perspective but there is a bigger cultural divide...not to mention the on-field product is much less exciting. There's also the fact that Texas is the only fertile recruiting ground in the Big 12 (albeit a very a large one) while most of the Southern states in question churn out quite a few players...but with a lot of poaching from other conferences as well.

The weirdest thing about the ACC is that they are one defection away from no longer being a Southern majority conference. They currently stand at 7 ACC and 7 former Big East members (+ND) and they do not have a viable Southern replacement team if they lose any of the other founding members. Yes, yes, I realize that two of those Big East teams were Louisville and Miami but neither of those two locations are what I consider an embodiment of Southern culture.

lol - no way it was Vandy. We're talking about a school that doesn't even have a AD. Tennessee is also a pretty crappy state in terms of recruiting grounds and demographics in general ... we're talking about a market that's smaller than Indiana. You have to remember that the whole "Southern Migration" phenomena is largely isolated to 4 southern states : Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, and Florida. All other states, while impressive in terms of % increases, actually increased about the same as the rest of the country/Midwest in absolute terms. It doesn't make sense for the Big Ten to expand to school that not in one of those four states if we're talking Southern expansion.

It makes sense for a 9 conf. schedule because it avoids the uneven home-away split - but I disagree that the choice of neutral games should be up to the perspective schools. Aside from the logistic issues, the neutral site games will need to be pretty good match ups to have a positive marketing effect.

On the flip side, Duke draws better than Kansas in NE (and probably outside of the Midwest in general), which will probably help gain traction in DC & NYC. I'm not excited about either school, but I think the Kansas vs Duke argument is pretty even.

I have a hard time believing the $50M figure is the actual hangup - even if the future payout of the Big Ten is lower than the $40M/annual figure that is being thrown about we're talking about schools making at least $10-$15M more annually compared to the ACC. Any target school should be able to take out a loan for the $50M amount if required and even if the interest rates were high (7-8%) they will come out ahead NPV positive before 2020.