Could the Big Ten Move Toward Unequal Revenue Distribution?

The Big Ten is one of the oldest college athletic conferences in the country. Originally founded in 1896 as the Intercollegiate Conference of Faculty Representatives it is home to some of the best universities in the world, some of the best athletic programs in the country, and most importantly, our beloved Purdue Boilermakers. Purdue of course was a founding member with Purdue’s own president James Smart credited as one of the brain child(ren)(s) behind the idea. What become known most famously as the Big Ten quickly grew to 11, then 12, then 14, then 16, before finally landed at its currently level of 18. Purdue has been around for it all.

One of of the guiding principles of the conference is that all members are equal (yes I know new members have to earn their share over a number of years, but the idea is they will eventually get there). It doesn’t matter if you’re Ohio State, more on them later, Purdue, or Northwestern. Everyone gets their equal share of the TV revenue. The teams stick together which is one reason the conference is such a desirable landing spot during all these recent rounds of conference realignment. The conference has big names in the two biggest sports. With football there’s Ohio State and Michigan, the two most recent national champions, along with perennial contenders Penn State and Oregon. In basketball there’s (gulp) historically good though not so much lately IU, Illinois, UCLA, and of course our Boilermakers who head into next season the favorite to win it all. The conference is dominant in other sports too such as field hockey and men’s soccer. Through all of this though the money has been evenly divided. While teams like Clemson and Florida State tried desperately to get out of their ACC deal, and did it in public, the Big Ten was inviting in new members with the promise of B1G TV deals with B1G payouts. The current media rights deal is worth, approximately $7.8 billion over the life. No exact figure is known since the contract has escalator clauses that could raise the overall value. That amounts to between $63-$79 million per school per year depending on the final numbers of the deal.

As noted above, some of the new schools get a slightly lower share as they work in to the conference to eventually become full members. I have no problem with that. Paying your dues so to speak. What I do have a problem with is an idea that was floated in a USA Today article about revenue sharing in the Big Ten sparked by an interview with Ohio State president Ted Carter. The article is worth reading in its entirety, but I’ll pull out the most relevant part here.

“Asked whether that should translate into something different in terms of revenue share, Carter said: “It doesn’t matter what Ted Carter thinks. I think that’s going to be a conversation that will be had over time.”“

Sounds to me like Ted Carter has some ideas about changing the way revenue sharing works in the Big Ten Conference. If that’s true, it would represent a sea change in the way that the conference has worked for decades. It would also mean trouble for a school like Purdue. Yes, Purdue is a draw in basketball season, but anyone who follows sports knows that college football is where the media rights money comes from. You and I might love college basketball more than we love college football, but it’s safe to say that we are in the minority. Should the conference decide that revenue will be shared based on national cache or TV ratings per averaged per school it would spell trouble for the Purdue share of revenue. We don’t have to sit here and kid ourselves. Right now, and I hope it’s just for right now, we know where Purdue stands in conference football talks and frankly it’s not good. If it weren’t for UCLA and Northwestern having terrible seasons Purdue could be staring at a second straight season of being the laughingstock of the conference (Purdue is obviously much better this year but it’s going to be a tough rebuild.). So what happens if schools like Michigan and Ohio State decide that they deserve more of a share? Could every other school get 1% less? What about 5% less? Would it just be $2 million less with one million from every other team going to Ohio State and Michigan? Whatever it is, it would be a slippery slope for Purdue and the rest of the non-household name schools.

In the past, the Big Ten has kicked schools out for not following their bylaws. In fact, Michigan got voted out of the conference in 1907 for failing to adhere to the football scheduling rules. Could something like that happen again? Could the big name schools decide that Northwestern doesn’t deserve to be in the conference and give them an ultimatum of “taking X% less in revenue or we will vote you out”? It seems a bit extreme but when money and power are on the line it’s hard to imagine the depths that some folks wouldn’t go.

Is this a real problem right now? I don’t think so. It seems like Ohio State’s president was just musing on some issues the conference faces. For now I think teams like Rutgers and Northwestern shouldn’t be too worried, but with this now spoken into the world by Ohio State’s president does it become like Chekhov’s gun that since it was mentioned it will eventually be used? Or does it merely hang above us all like the Sword of Domcles just ever present, always reminding us of the impending doom that awaits us if we make the wrong choices in TV deal negotiations. I’m not worried, yet, but we’ve seen how the large and powerful schools can be determined to get what they want and cause problems for the small schools. It’s something we should be aware of. For now, let’s get ready for Purdue versus another big name football school, Notre Dame, coming up this Saturday.

0 Comments