Interesting article here by Adam Rittenberg of ESPN that certainly could come to pass:

https://www.espn.com/college-football/st...ance-based

"But Dannen thinks the program has no limitations on recapturing its championship tradition, especially if it makes necessary investments in name, image and likeness, and other key resource areas."

If you want to win, it's going to cost you. It's not "eat what you kill", it's "you get what you pay for".

Thanks for sharing this. It seems to me that we've seen a few statements by Nebraska admins recently about the state of college athletics.

For some reason, I give them short-shrift. Maybe I don't understand B1G politics very well, but I have the sense that Nebraska is a B1G "outsider" in a political sense, that what they think just doesn't matter much in the B1G halls of power, and so I don't take their statements as reflecting the B1G stance on anything. To me, statements like this are an effort by UNL to assert itself, to reclaim the power it used to have in college athletics but which has IMO diminished greatly the past 20 or so years, especially since joining the B1G.

Just my take, I could well be wrong.

It’s a strange argument because he’s using the new CFP revenue model as supposedly an example of “eat what you kill”, but the Big Ten and SEC actually removed all performance incentives for the conferences entirely. The only schools with any performance-based incentives are the independents. He’s conflating “performance-based” revenue with “brand names that are inherently worth more” revenue. The new CFP revenue model is the latter.

(04-16-2024 08:37 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  It’s a strange argument because he’s using the new CFP revenue model as supposedly an example of “eat what you kill”, but the Big Ten and SEC actually removed all performance incentives for the conferences entirely. The only schools with any performance-based incentives are the independents. He’s conflating “performance-based” revenue with “brand names that are inherently worth more” revenue. The new CFP revenue model is the latter.

I thought the same thing when I read this article. This new Nebraska Athletic Director used a terrible example of a point he was trying to make. This take would also mean more if the AD who was saying what Big Ten will be like in the future had been an AD of the conference for more than a hot minute.

I think he's just not very articulate. Its not meritocracy at all. It is power and brand. Who produces eyeballs on the screen.

(04-16-2024 08:50 AM)bullet Wrote:  I think he's just not very articulate. Its not meritocracy at all. It is power and brand. Who produces eyeballs on the screen.

Nebraska seems to be fearful of the conference retraction scenario which is often posited to "deal with" teams in the Big 10 who are widely thought "lacking"... whether that infers having a weak brand, weak FB/BB. no AAU, etc...

Send rep points directly to:

Mr. esayem

PO Box 0508
1953 I Was Right Lane
Greensboro, NC 27407


But in all seriousness, there's a signpost up ahead. This is the fork in the road: to the left we have one super conference featuring the most elite brands, and to the right we have unequal conference revenue distribution.

(04-16-2024 08:49 AM)Big12HoopsHeaven Wrote:  

Well folks this comes from Fluguar who has pushed the Clemson and FSU to the Big 10 narrative. Does anyone else see the glaring inconsistencies in his position? Does he really think any school wants to join a conference which could humiliate them by later deciding to kick them out?

As for share and share alike, equal revenue sharing works professionally. I find no issues with the SEC and Big 10 distribution models except the Big 10 requires a buy in to cover shares in the BTN, which due to FOX buying more of the rights has gotten cheaper.

At this juncture of the game, the Big 10 might think that using AAU is to their advantage and Nebraska would send a message, but if they do believe that they are headed for a nasty surprise and if today it is Nebraska tomorrow it might well be Oregon,

Get rid of conferences and go to one big league. Paid what you earn as individual schools. Sure you'll need divisions, but SO LONG to the conference pride nonsense that ESPN started many years ago. The conference chest-thumpers around here would lose their minds!

(04-16-2024 10:20 AM)cubucks Wrote:  Get rid of conferences and go to one big league. Paid what you earn as individual schools. Sure you'll need divisions, but SO LONG to the conference pride nonsense that ESPN started many years ago. The conference chest-thumpers around here would lose their minds!

ESPN made it worse, but it's been around a lot longer than ESPN.

(04-16-2024 10:20 AM)cubucks Wrote:  Get rid of conferences and go to one big league. Paid what you earn as individual schools. Sure you'll need divisions, but SO LONG to the conference pride nonsense that ESPN started many years ago. The conference chest-thumpers around here would lose their minds!

It might happen in the future.

Once the tv money starts drying up, the top of the P2 will morph into the P1.

I’m not worried when that happens because my alma mater Penn State will be part of that select group. I’d be worried if I was a fan of schools in Illinois, Mississippi, Iowa, Indiana, Nebraska, Arkansas, etc.

Nobody will get upset when the Purdues and South Carolinas of the world get demoted. Just as nobody got upset when Oregon State, Washington State, Cincinnati, UConn, South Florida, Temple, Rice, SMU, TCU and Houston got demoted. It’s nothing personal, just business.

Back to the topic, why are Nebraska fans afraid of being kicked out of the Big Ten? I just don’t see the B1G trying even if they wanted to. Now if we’re solely speaking about a future P1 then the odds are not on their side

(04-16-2024 09:59 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-16-2024 08:49 AM)Big12HoopsHeaven Wrote:  

Well folks this comes from Fluguar who has pushed the Clemson and FSU to the Big 10 narrative. Does anyone else see the glaring inconsistencies in his position? Does he really think any school wants to join a conference which could humiliate them by later deciding to kick them out?

As for share and share alike, equal revenue sharing works professionally. I find no issues with the SEC and Big 10 distribution models except the Big 10 requires a buy in to cover shares in the BTN, which due to FOX buying more of the rights have gotten cheaper.

At this juncture of the game, the Big 10 might think that using AAU is to their advantage and Nebraska would send a message, but if they do believe that they are headed for a nasty surprise and if today it is Nebraska tomorrow it might well be Oregon,

Fluguar is the Big Ten version of The Dude - a conspiracy theorist that got one prediction right (USC to the Big Ten) and now dines out on it where some people now take the other 99% of the stuff that he says seriously even as the new predictions get wilder and wilder.

And look - I get it in the world of social media. When I was writing my blog, the posts that got the most hits and shared the most were generally the ones that I made predictions on. Everyone liked a “Frank the Tank predicts X” post because, whether the prediction is right or wrong or someone agreed with me or thought I was full of crap, it would instantly generate discussion. I didn’t intentionally do this because I simply wrote what I was interested in, but I definitely saw the pattern. It’s essentially why Stephen A. Smith and Pat McAfee are the highest paid people at ESPN. Flug is responding to what the market is interested in. I just was pretty clear that I wasn’t predicting based on purporting to have some type of inside information (outside of a few times where that occurred). When you hold yourself out to be an insider, you end up needing to ratchet it up more and more to keep interest to the point it’s ridiculous. (It’s like a TV show that has been on too long and has to create even more insane storylines to retain interest. Somehow, the hospital in Grey’s Anatomy has some type of natural disaster or mass casualty event that’s worse than the last one… and it happens 10 times a year.)

In any event, you’re correct, JRsec. This whole strain of the thought of the Big Ten kicking Nebraska out is ludicrous. There is no “fear” of that happening there outside of some clickbait headlines and conjecture. It doesn’t even make sense even if you give any credence these conspiracy theories (as FSU and Clemson aren’t even AAU members, so it makes no sense that the Big Ten would hold that against Nebraska but not against new members).

Dannen was at Northern Iowa from 2008-2015 and Tulane from 2015-2023. That's why I said the other day that we should listen to what the guys from Syracuse and Iowa State have to say about the future of college athletics; they're the guys who will be at Ohio St and Alabama tomorrow.

That doesn't mean that they're always right, however. Like this:

"There's going to be some meritocracy versus more of a social approach to revenue distribution," Dannen said. "You'll eventually see that within leagues. You'll eventually see that across sports, maybe other than football. An eat what you kill, in some respects, that mentality. It's going to be much more performance-based and outcomes, when it comes to generating the revenue necessary to compete.

"The CFP decisions that have been made so far show that."

I disagree with him regarding the CFP decisions. Those decisions were made b/c Sankey and Petitti wanted them to be made. Full stop. The "this is how many participants we've had in the CFP" was a rationale that they used to justify what they were already going to do, anyway. If it had been solely or even partially based upon CFP participation and/or success, then they SEC would be getting $35m and the B1G would be lucky to make as much as the ACC.

(04-16-2024 10:54 AM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  

(04-16-2024 10:20 AM)cubucks Wrote:  Get rid of conferences and go to one big league. Paid what you earn as individual schools. Sure you'll need divisions, but SO LONG to the conference pride nonsense that ESPN started many years ago. The conference chest-thumpers around here would lose their minds!

It might happen in the future.

Once the tv money starts drying up, the top of the P2 will morph into the P1.

I’m not worried when that happens because my alma mater Penn State will be part of that select group. I’d be worried if I was a fan of schools in Illinois, Mississippi, Iowa, Indiana, Nebraska, Arkansas, etc.

Nobody will get upset when the Purdues and South Carolinas of the world get demoted. Just as nobody got upset when Oregon State, Washington State, Cincinnati, UConn, South Florida, Temple, Rice, SMU, TCU and Houston got demoted. It’s nothing personal, just business.

Back to the topic, why are Nebraska fans afraid of being kicked out of the Big Ten? I just don’t see the B1G trying even if they wanted to. Now if we’re solely speaking about a future P1 then the odds are not on their side

Do you honestly believe tOSU is going to allow Nebraska to be kicked out of the BIG? You do realize, Flugar, whom I've grown to NOT hate as much as I once did, is pushing some of this? He hates Nebraska! He should be worried about Minnesota. In what world would a conference kick Nebraska out ahead of Minnesota.

You said "back on topic"? When did you or I leave the topic? Performance base is actually directly connected to what we're talking about.

Folks at Nebraska can talk and be in the public eye without worrying. Minnesota, Purdue, Indiana, Illinois etc.. can't. Does that make sense? Don't let the academic snobs around here come crashing in and tell you how much it matters today. Certain schools are loosening their grip, slowly but surely, on this. That's what makes Illinois feel safe and cozy, their academics and not their athletics. They are the type that should be worried.

(04-16-2024 09:59 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-16-2024 08:49 AM)Big12HoopsHeaven Wrote:  

Well folks this comes from Fluguar who has pushed the Clemson and FSU to the Big 10 narrative. Does anyone else see the glaring inconsistencies in his position? Does he really think any school wants to join a conference which could humiliate them by later deciding to kick them out?

As for share and share alike, equal revenue sharing works professionally. I find no issues with the SEC and Big 10 distribution models except the Big 10 requires a buy in to cover shares in the BTN, which due to FOX buying more of the rights have gotten cheaper.

At this juncture of the game, the Big 10 might think that using AAU is to their advantage and Nebraska would send a message, but if they do believe that they are headed for a nasty surprise and if today it is Nebraska tomorrow it might well be Oregon,

You're right about Flugaur and you're right about Nebraska. No way the B1G kicks them out, as much as you know I hope they would. I just did some digging on "would the big 10 ever kick Nebraska out", and the results were littered with opinion pieces like this one:

https://www.si.com/college/nebraska/foot...he-big-ten

tldr: they lose too many games so the things that make them valuable to the B1G, which in Dave Feit's opinion are

fan support, TV ratings and a legitimate desire to be a championship contender

could be under threat in the future. He might be right, but that's a pretty distant future.

(04-16-2024 10:57 AM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  Dannen was at Northern Iowa from 2008-2015 and Tulane from 2015-2023. That's why I said the other day that we should listen to what the guys from Syracuse and Iowa State have to say about the future of college athletics; they're the guys who will be at Ohio St and Alabama tomorrow.

That doesn't mean that they're always right, however. Like this:

"There's going to be some meritocracy versus more of a social approach to revenue distribution," Dannen said. "You'll eventually see that within leagues. You'll eventually see that across sports, maybe other than football. An eat what you kill, in some respects, that mentality. It's going to be much more performance-based and outcomes, when it comes to generating the revenue necessary to compete.

"The CFP decisions that have been made so far show that."

I disagree with him regarding the CFP decisions. Those decisions were made b/c Sankey and Petitti wanted them to be made. Full stop. The "this is how many participants we've had in the CFP" was a rationale that they used to justify what they were already going to do, anyway. If it had been solely or even partially based upon CFP participation and/or success, then they SEC would be getting $35m and the B1G would be lucky to make as much as the ACC.

…and Sankey and Petitti represent membership that could lean on meritocracy to get the lion’s share.

Trajectory is pointing towards even more meritocracy in college sports. It’s not a bad thing, it’s capitalistic evolution baby.

I think the conferences are going to look at the NFL model and baseball model. They like some being good like the baseball model as opposed to the fully equal NFL model. But they will let local earned revenue be the differentiating factor, something they have some influence over. They aren't going to go full eat what you kill and give overwhelming %s of the media dollars to Ohio St. and Michigan. Those schools already have an advantage. When the Pac 16 deal fell apart, Texas and OU lead the way to equal sharing of the TV revenue, not Baylor and Kansas St. Previously, it had been half equal and half merit based-on the number of TV appearances. In the 80s, Texas and Texas A&M read the riot act to the rest of the SWC on women's athletics. The powers really don't want 77-0 every week. They don't want women's basketball winning 130-26. That is not entertaining.

There may at some point be "Prestige Worldwide" with a 16-20 team superconference with all the football powers, surrounded by M level conferences. But within conferences, they will stay relatively equal.

(04-16-2024 11:42 AM)bullet Wrote:  I think the conferences are going to look at the NFL model and baseball model. They like some being good like the baseball model as opposed to the fully equal NFL model. But they will let local earned revenue be the differentiating factor, something they have some influence over. They aren't going to go full eat what you kill and give overwhelming %s of the media dollars to Ohio St. and Michigan. Those schools already have an advantage. When the Pac 16 deal fell apart, Texas and OU lead the way to equal sharing of the TV revenue, not Baylor and Kansas St. Previously, it had been half equal and half merit based-on the number of TV appearances. In the 80s, Texas and Texas A&M read the riot act to the rest of the SWC on women's athletics. The powers really don't want 77-0 every week. They don't want women's basketball winning 130-26. That is not entertaining.

There may at some point be "Prestige Worldwide" with a 16-20 team superconference with all the football powers, surrounded by M level conferences. But within conferences, they will stay relatively equal.

Glorious Step Brothers reference! Whoever creates the first super league - whether it’s soccer, college football, or something else - needs to call it the Prestige Worldwide League.