- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: The Big Ten’s revenue distributions will top $52 million per school next year
Posted on 6/23/18 at 2:59 pm to dcrews
Posted on 6/23/18 at 2:59 pm to dcrews
quote:
Here's another dilemma. Does the university's non profit tax status remain in place if they have "paid employees" that are generating profits?
No non profits can bring in more than they spend.
quote:
Per the IRS tax code, are players to be considered "1099" and subject to taxes on not only what they are being "paid", but the value of all the perks they are given for being student athletes? (free tuition, free books, free clothes, free food, free board, free medical care, free training, etc...)
This ready isn't all that complicated.
1
Posted on 6/23/18 at 3:11 pm to mizzoubuckeyeiowa
quote:
I don't think the Pac-12 has much choice.
To no fault of their own, they alienate most of the nation who is in bed when their games come on.
If the Pac-12 went back to their traditional 12:30pm start times for football games...well then they are competing with SEC 3:30pm start times.
Big10 has sort of a monopoly as being the only thing on the television before Noon.
It's a TV war...that the Pac-12 can't logistically win.
What does have to do with the Pac forcing providers to carry 1 national and 6 regional networks instead of having just 1 national network (like B1GN and SECN) causing providers to tell them thanks but no thanks on carrying P12N?
The only time they ever run more than one Pac12 game at the same time on the national and regionals is early in the year w/FCS OOC games and those could be either taken care of via digital streaming like how everyone else does it when those kinds of games are at the same time.
This post was edited on 6/23/18 at 3:13 pm
Posted on 6/23/18 at 3:43 pm to TigerintheNO
quote:
It wasn't a guess it was a fact,
This is what you stated
quote:
A&M in #1 in the nation in revenue,
You said NOTHING about 2016 so you were in fact incorrect.
So if I say college X led the country in revenue I can arbitrarily pick the year to back up my statement??
Posted on 6/23/18 at 3:48 pm to Dr RC
quote:
streaming services are not going to be paying the same kind of cheese at that point. They won't need to.
Why not?You don't think they'll bid against each other
just like the networks?
Posted on 6/23/18 at 5:50 pm to Mingo Was His NameO
quote:
No non profits can bring in more than they spend.
I understand that, but when you start paying students, does that change the dynamic at all?
quote:
This ready isn't all that complicated.
Tax considerations aren't unreasonable to discuss for something like this.
But with all the information you provided, I may have to reconsider my questions..............
Posted on 6/23/18 at 5:58 pm to RedRifle
1. Players get paid a cost of living fee now, not to mention the worth of their scholarship if you’re a scholarship player. Meals and gear too.
2 I’m fine with players being able to grab endorsement money
3. Schools should not pay players anymore than they are already currently getting. Maybe Michigan can get away with it (though doubtful), but schools like Rice can’t.
2 I’m fine with players being able to grab endorsement money
3. Schools should not pay players anymore than they are already currently getting. Maybe Michigan can get away with it (though doubtful), but schools like Rice can’t.
Posted on 6/23/18 at 6:45 pm to GeorgeTheGreek
What happens when boosters "endorse" players to come to their school of choice?
Posted on 6/23/18 at 7:20 pm to KosmoCramer
Yeah, I have been thinking how ridiculous the endorsement situation would be if you had a couple big car dealers in Columbus and Austin basically bidding for a kid. Even worse, let's say Phil Knight and Stephen Ross decide to go at it.
Posted on 6/23/18 at 7:56 pm to Bunk Moreland
The Big Ten will still get revenue with streaming and more revenue with streaming. You will have to buy the Big Ten network. You won't just pick what schools you want to watch.
The WWE network charges 9.99 per month. The Big Ten network will be like MLB.tv. You buy the network and all the games, but when your local team is on Fox, ESPN, ABC and so on it will be blacked out.
Streaming will add to revenue and the networks OTA or cable will still pay the bucks. MLB has increased revenue via their tv deals and via their streaming network.
WWE is making more money with RAW and Smackdown on cable and with their streaming network. There will be no bubble bursting in regard to revenue from watching sports either OTA, cable or streaming.
The WWE network charges 9.99 per month. The Big Ten network will be like MLB.tv. You buy the network and all the games, but when your local team is on Fox, ESPN, ABC and so on it will be blacked out.
Streaming will add to revenue and the networks OTA or cable will still pay the bucks. MLB has increased revenue via their tv deals and via their streaming network.
WWE is making more money with RAW and Smackdown on cable and with their streaming network. There will be no bubble bursting in regard to revenue from watching sports either OTA, cable or streaming.
Posted on 6/23/18 at 9:13 pm to Ralph_Wiggum
quote:
The Big Ten will still get revenue with streaming and more revenue with streaming. You will have to buy the Big Ten network. You won't just pick what schools you want to watch.
They better start getting customers to stream because
Comcast recently dropped it from non Big 10 territories
LINK
Comcast didn't even want to negotiate...not exactly the greatest news in the 1st year of their new TV contract.
Posted on 6/23/18 at 9:27 pm to RD Dawg
quote:
hey better start getting customers to stream because
Comcast recently dropped it from non Big 10 territories
LINK
Comcast didn't even want to negotiate...not exactly the greatest news in the 1st year of their new TV contract.
Big Ten network then become a streaming network in non-big ten states. A lot of big ten fans and alumni will pay to have a streaming big ten network with the choice of multiple games like how the MLB.tv streaming and WWE network works. You will see revenue increase in states like Florida and California via streaming network versus what they got from Comcast.
Posted on 6/23/18 at 9:57 pm to Ralph_Wiggum
quote:
You will see revenue increase in states like Florida and California via streaming network versus what they got from Comcast.
I HIGHLY doubt you'll see an increase in revenue any time soon.You might see it down the road but it's not a good situation in the short term.
quote:
This isn’t public posturing during a rights negotiation either, this is a done deal, per Comcast.
We’ll see what happens to Big Ten Network revenue due to the loss in subscriber fees. Those are the portions of your bill that go directly to the network every month (between $0.39 and $1 for BTN). Networks want to inflate them so they generate more revenue, and cable companies want to lower them.
As that Comcast tweet notes, subscribers can still watch live games (the main leverage that sports cable networks have in negotiations) on Big Ten’s streaming service, BTN2Go. But to do that, fans will need a cable subscription. It’s unclear what will happen to BTN2Go if the network gets blacked out on May 10 for out-of-market customers. For now, Comcast is still listed as a BTN2Go provider.
Posted on 6/23/18 at 10:37 pm to dcrews
quote:Read up on title ix. The university receives federal financial assistance and therefore must treat all students equally. That means it doesn't matter about profitability of football/basketball vs women's soccer, they have to be paid equally.
The entire premise of paying athletes is not based on them "representing the university". It's based on the capitalistic idea that said athletes are providing a service that is bringing in profits.
If you are talking profitability, few schools generate "profits" except out of football. And most schools the athletics programs are so heavily subsidized that even football loses money, which is why schools were beginning to drop it, like UAB, until pressure forced them to reinstate it.
Posted on 6/23/18 at 11:24 pm to GeauxTigersLee
quote:
If you are talking profitability, few schools generate "profits" except out of football.
Please,if P5 schools are "losing money" it's either due
to shady accounting or the fact that they're spending money like drunken sailors.Between '04 and '14 the top 48 P5 schools had an almost $2 BILLION increase in revenue and they're still "losing money"?
quote:
's not that college sports don't generate money. The Post's review of records obtained from 48 major-college athletic powers found that revenue has grown from $2.6 billion to $4.5 billion since 2004 -- but spending has grown proportionately right along with it.
I get that G5 schools are in the red and probably couldnt survive without P5 paydays and student fees and
many should go ahead and drop CFB but P5's are rolling and revenue especially with $600 million annually they recieved from the CFB playoff agreememt.
I also understand Title IX limitations but P5 schools could easily afford to double the current COA stipend...it's about the cost of the annual salary of DC about $1.5 million give or take.
This post was edited on 6/24/18 at 12:00 am
Posted on 6/23/18 at 11:36 pm to RD Dawg
quote:
You said NOTHING about 2016 so you were in fact incorrect.
wrong again- I literally titled the link
quote:
USAToday '16 numbers
then had you clicked on the link you would see that the USAToday has it as their title. The reason I used those year's numbers was it was the most recent list compiled.
Posted on 6/23/18 at 11:59 pm to TigerintheNO
quote:
wrong again- I literally titled the link
You provided no link in the post I responded to...
quote:
then had you clicked on the link you would see that the USAToday has it as their title. The reason I used those year's numbers was it was the most recent list compiled
This is also from USA today regarding '17 numbers
Posted on 6/24/18 at 2:19 am to KosmoCramer
quote:
What happens when boosters "endorse" players to come to their school of choice?
I think there are ways you can do it. Endorsements are vetted by the school, conference and NCAA and have certain stipulations. I think it can be done.
Posted on 6/24/18 at 7:09 am to VerlanderBEAST
That's because they are using one sport to pay for every other sport.
That is bullshite.
When government does it you people complain. When the NCAA and colleges do it you are okay with it.
It's hypocritical socialistic and absolute bullshite.
That is bullshite.
When government does it you people complain. When the NCAA and colleges do it you are okay with it.
It's hypocritical socialistic and absolute bullshite.
Posted on 6/24/18 at 7:26 am to GeorgeTheGreek
quote:
I think there are ways you can do it. Endorsements are vetted by the school, conference and NCAA and have certain stipulations. I think it can be done
so the NCAA gets to decide who can pay players? They only let Under Armour, Nike and Adidas endorse not the local car dealership. Also could the schools lose tons of money if Under Armour can endorse just the top players instead of the whole football program.
There is nothing wrong with the student-athlete model. The issue is with pro leagues draft restrictions.
Posted on 6/24/18 at 7:45 am to TigerintheNO
Maryland and Rutgers won’t be a full-equity partners in B1G revenue distributions until 2020-21.
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News