Reply to thread

Message

[QUOTE="HtownOrange, post: 1903138, member: 622"]
Arguments for: 
- The schools can bargain as a whole.  They know that the networks are underpaying them. The B1G's short term deal that doubles the SEC payout proves that there is far more money to go around than has been let on.  Already, ESPN has issued assurances to the SEC and ACC that they will receive significant increases soon (probably at the "look-in" periods).
- The Networks can work with one agreement, each individually contracting with the Power Group, or collectively simplified negotiations and relationships make planning much easier.  Business tends towards this, at least until there is one behemoth that can be successfully broken apart (ATT, Standard Oil).

Arguments against: 
- Conferences can get better deals (this is short term as the next conference up can beat the last "Best deal".)  
- More teams can still compete, at least on paper.

Teams already share revenues equally within the conference (excluding stipends for playoffs/championships/bowls). Getting a few $MM more than another conference for a few years really is peanuts in the big boy budgets (Syracuse AD budget was north of $85MM and that is probably with fuzzy math as Syracuse owns the Dome outright).  The AD budget is peanuts to the overall budget of the University, most of which are measured in the $Billions.

Ultimately, the players (P5 teams) are in an elite club with elite friends 9networks) and elite enforcers (Congress).  They will work together far more than they will fight.  It pays better and doesn't waste resources.
[/QUOTE]

Verification

What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?