Reply to thread

Message

[QUOTE="HtownOrange, post: 5684374, member: 622"]
From the B1G and SEC perspectives (and likely the ACC and Big12, too) this may be accurate.  Specifically, they get the lion's share of the TV rights and the rights payments keep increasing.  My guess is that the broadcasters are making far more money than they let on.  The entertainment industry has employed the best tax accountants and attorneys for the past century, making blockbuster movies look like failures to the IRS.  ESPN routinely cries poverty and comes through with increases that far exceed inflation.  If the SEC and B1G share revenue now, they cannot capitalize on the disparity between the upper and middle/lower classes.  (The ACC and Big 12 are probably upper-middle class in this scenario).  By keeping the lion's share, the SEC and B1G will continue to take the lion's share while the ACC and Big 12 still collect a very healthy payday, in comparison to the others.

The claim that the pool of 136 schools is unmanageable is nonsense.  The broadcasters and streamers handle this already and across many sports, thus disproving the myth spewed by the "study."  This claim is a red herring to distract everyone from seeing what the study was truly intended to do: Justify keeping the conferences separated to allow the biggest money to go to the B1G and SEC.

The argument about the conferences earning more as independent from each other is somewhat true.  The real issue of old was that the broadcasters were simply robbing every school.  Decades later, they still are, just not quite as significant a profit margin.  Plus, they will only continue to get the largest increases if there is separation of the conferences.
[/QUOTE]

Verification

What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?