|
|
Post by spudbeaver on Nov 3, 2024 10:16:18 GMT -8
12 years of reduced payments! What a s%#tty deal.
|
|
|
|
Post by rgeorge on Nov 3, 2024 10:23:00 GMT -8
Cal newspaper has repeatedly stated that Cal is getting at least $11 mil (average) the first (7) years of the ACC contract, plus $10 mil/year "calimony" from UCLA. Cal & Furd are full members and will share in other revenues streams. It is the media stream that is the main issue of all the money talk.
"Officially, Cal and Stanford will be full-share members for 12 years beginning in 2024. But, according to Cal’s approval letter, the university "must 'contribute' money back to the conference for nine years." Stanford as a private university is not bound to disclose its membership agreement, but the terms “likely are identical to those in Cal’s deal.” According to Cal’s membership letter, its contributions to the ACC are as follows: 67% of "distributions of Media Revenue" to Cal during each of the first 7 years, 30% in the 8th year and 25% in the 9th year."
Hence, with the UCLA $ Cal is almost to a full media share, plus a full member sharing in other revenue streams. It is the pill they swallowed to be part of a P4 conference.
|
|
|
|
Post by nuclearbeaver on Nov 3, 2024 10:29:59 GMT -8
ACC has a fairly complex semi meritocratic system so it's pretty hard to nail down a number. They also have multiple tiers and deals that control the % of base payout.
They call it the success driven incentive model. I think the tiers also have to do with enrollment but it's not a quick google.
|
|
|
|
Post by drunkandstoopidbeav on Nov 3, 2024 11:38:33 GMT -8
Cal newspaper has repeatedly stated that Cal is getting at least $11 mil (average) the first (7) years of the ACC contract, plus $10 mil/year "calimony" from UCLA. Cal & Furd are full members and will share in other revenues streams. It is the media stream that is the main issue of all the money talk. "Officially, Cal and Stanford will be full-share members for 12 years beginning in 2024. But, according to Cal’s approval letter, the university "must 'contribute' money back to the conference for nine years." Stanford as a private university is not bound to disclose its membership agreement, but the terms “likely are identical to those in Cal’s deal.” According to Cal’s membership letter, its contributions to the ACC are as follows: 67% of "distributions of Media Revenue" to Cal during each of the first 7 years, 30% in the 8th year and 25% in the 9th year." Hence, with the UCLA $ Cal is almost to a full media share, plus a full member sharing in other revenue streams. It is the pill they swallowed to be part of a P4 conference. As far as the media revenues go "Contributing back to the conference" sounds a lot like a word game trying to say they are "full share conference members" to keep the fans happy, but they only get to keep 33% of it the next seven years. Unless the conference's media deal is actually 33 million a year, 11 million average over the life of the contract sounds about right, but those first 7 years of media revenue are gonna be brutal. I understand there likely are other revenue streams the P4 schools might see over the G5 schools, but media played a big part in the Big 12 conference's expansion decision. |
|
|
|
Post by grayman on Nov 3, 2024 12:44:10 GMT -8
The Big 12 didn't add OSU and WSU because of geography and some of the schools didn't think they moved the needle enough.
Both are legitimate concerns if you look at it from their standpoint.
I would disagree with how Oregon State football was viewed in the last couple of years. I would argue that OSU was well regarded and known nationally, especially as opposed to Arizona State and Arizona in football.
And it is a fact that WSU regularly and OSU in 2023 were/have been above nearly all of the current Big 12 in TV viewership.
The fact that the Big 12 had reached 16 schools was also a factor but does not preclude adding more schools at some point.
It will be interesting to see how the TV numbers of the new Pac-12 and the Big 12 compare down the road.
|
|
|
|
Post by seastape on Nov 3, 2024 13:19:49 GMT -8
I am not going to pretend that Phil Knight made his money the right way. He made it by sending American jobs overseas and profiting on foreign peoples' poverty. But what you cited does not show any sense of vindictiveness or weirdness. Just a regular monster. The school joined the wrong labor watchdog group and he decided it was the end of his donations. That sounds pretty vindictive to me. IIRC, the school backed out of the WRC and the contributions started up again. |
|
|
|
Post by Judge Smails on Nov 3, 2024 15:24:04 GMT -8
Cal and Stanford are getting 30% of the payout. It’s more than $9 million. I've seen anywhere from 25-35 million in conference payout listed in articles about the league. From Google (like most articles, not necessarily accurate): "As part of their agreement to join the ACC, Stanford and Cal will receive reduced television revenue shares for the first nine years of their membership: TV revenue shares Cal and Stanford will receive reduced, but escalating, TV revenue shares over the first 12 years of their membership. They will start at about 30% of the standard per-school distribution. Full membership Cal and Stanford will eventually receive full ACC revenue shares. A full share is estimated at about $25 million per year. The ACC's television contract with ESPN runs through 2036. ESPN pays the ACC $24 million annually for each new team added. The deal splits TV revenue evenly between all 14 schools." "IF" the ACC contract is at the higher range, Stanford and Cal could pull in maybe 11/12 million. If the article was accurate, 9 million is a generous estimate. Time will tell if the Pac does better. From a strict $$ standpoint, I think rebuilding the Pac is probably worth the risk, especially considering the NCAA money (tournament units, etc) coming in the Pac gets to keep the next several years if it doesn't disband. That might be accurate if you go just by TV revenue. But, they get 30% of the total payout and the ACC gets a s%#tload of NCAA basketball units. They will get a total payout of $15 million plus, when you include everything. |
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Nov 3, 2024 16:43:18 GMT -8
I am not going to pretend that Phil Knight made his money the right way. He made it by sending American jobs overseas and profiting on foreign peoples' poverty. But what you cited does not show any sense of vindictiveness or weirdness. Just a regular monster. The school joined the wrong labor watchdog group and he decided it was the end of his donations. That sounds pretty vindictive to me. IIRC, the school backed out of the WRC and the contributions started up again. See, that sounds calculated to me as opposed to vindictive. More Michael than Sonny Corleone. Besides, the example does not show a vindictiveness toward a school other than the University of Oregon, which was what was posited, that Knight would intentionally snub teams like Oregon State and Stanford. |
|
|
|
Post by NativeBeav on Nov 3, 2024 19:21:46 GMT -8
If we cut this down to where the rubber meets the road, the only reason Nike U is where it is, is because of Uncle Phil dollars. If not for the Bill Bowerman/ Bill Dellinger connection, starting Nike as an outgrowth of his time at UofO, there may never have been a Nike. Second, he only spends the money on Nike U because 10's of thousands of his useful idiot fans locally and around the country will buy gobs of his overpriced, ugly, made in 3rd world sweatshops clothes, shoes, equipment, apparel, etc. Does anyone think, really think, if Phil Knight had gotten to be a billionaire in any other industry, he would be spending the quantity of money on his Alma mater? really? No way. His Alma mater is his collegiate marketing outreach program to sell his sh*t. He and Nike are benefiting greatly by all of the free press and attention by sponsoring hole. And if UofO benefits as well in the process - so be it. It is self serving - nothing else. "New car, caviar, four star day dream, think I'll buy me a football team" - right? He wants to buy a natty before he dies, and I guarantee every picture, every article of clothing, etc - will have the swoosh on it. As an off and on runner since high school, serious runners I have known over the years do not run on Nike. Saucony, Brooks, New Balance, Adidas, Hoke - all make better running shoes than Nike. Haven't knowingly bought anything Nike in over 20 years - and never will. |
|
|
|
Post by seastape on Nov 3, 2024 19:33:39 GMT -8
The school joined the wrong labor watchdog group and he decided it was the end of his donations. That sounds pretty vindictive to me. IIRC, the school backed out of the WRC and the contributions started up again. See, that sounds calculated to me as opposed to vindictive. More Michael than Sonny Corleone. Besides, the example does not show a vindictiveness toward a school other than the University of Oregon, which was what was posited, that Knight would intentionally snub teams like Oregon State and Stanford. I see a bit of both! |
|
|
|
Post by spudbeaver on Nov 3, 2024 19:42:18 GMT -8
If we cut this down to where the rubber meets the road, the only reason Nike U is where it is, is because of Uncle Phil dollars. If not for the Bill Bowerman/ Bill Dellinger connection, starting Nike as an outgrowth of his time at UofO, there may never have been a Nike. Second, he only spends the money on Nike U because 10's of thousands of his useful idiot fans locally and around the country will buy gobs of his overpriced, ugly, made in 3rd world sweatshops clothes, shoes, equipment, apparel, etc. Does anyone think, really think, if Phil Knight had gotten to be a billionaire in any other industry, he would be spending the quantity of money on his Alma mater? really? No way. His Alma mater is his collegiate marketing outreach program to sell his sh*t. He and Nike are benefiting greatly by all of the free press and attention by sponsoring hole. And if UofO benefits as well in the process - so be it. It is self serving - nothing else. "New car, caviar, four star day dream, think I'll buy me a football team" - right? He wants to buy a natty before he dies, and I guarantee every picture, every article of clothing, etc - will have the swoosh on it. As an off and on runner since high school, serious runners I have known over the years do not run on Nike. Saucony, Brooks, New Balance, Adidas, Hoke - all make better running shoes than Nike. Haven't knowingly bought anything Nike in over 20 years - and never will. Obviously, U of O is the main focus, but I believe Knight gives to Stanford as well, for academic pursuits. There’s also the $500 Mil cancer center challenge at OHSU. Just to file under credit where credit is due. |
|
|
|
Post by NativeBeav on Nov 3, 2024 20:22:02 GMT -8
If we cut this down to where the rubber meets the road, the only reason Nike U is where it is, is because of Uncle Phil dollars. If not for the Bill Bowerman/ Bill Dellinger connection, starting Nike as an outgrowth of his time at UofO, there may never have been a Nike. Second, he only spends the money on Nike U because 10's of thousands of his useful idiot fans locally and around the country will buy gobs of his overpriced, ugly, made in 3rd world sweatshops clothes, shoes, equipment, apparel, etc. Does anyone think, really think, if Phil Knight had gotten to be a billionaire in any other industry, he would be spending the quantity of money on his Alma mater? really? No way. His Alma mater is his collegiate marketing outreach program to sell his sh*t. He and Nike are benefiting greatly by all of the free press and attention by sponsoring hole. And if UofO benefits as well in the process - so be it. It is self serving - nothing else. "New car, caviar, four star day dream, think I'll buy me a football team" - right? He wants to buy a natty before he dies, and I guarantee every picture, every article of clothing, etc - will have the swoosh on it. As an off and on runner since high school, serious runners I have known over the years do not run on Nike. Saucony, Brooks, New Balance, Adidas, Hoke - all make better running shoes than Nike. Haven't knowingly bought anything Nike in over 20 years - and never will. Obviously, U of O is the main focus, but I believe Knight gives to Stanford as well, for academic pursuits. There’s also the $500 Mil cancer center challenge at OHSU. Just to file under credit where credit is due. Any large business/ corporation, if they are smart and have good tax advice - spread around their donations. Give philanthropically, or give it to the government.
I sincerely doubt the donations to Stanford, OHSU, etc, equal the donations given to the UofO. But hey, maybe he has found a true selfless bone in his body, and is giving for the right reasons. Who knows. But anyone who thinks the donations to UofO are not self serving, is kidding themselves. It is good business for Nike, and good business for Uncle Phil. |
|
|
|
Post by rgeorge on Nov 3, 2024 21:00:22 GMT -8
Bit confused... aren't most donations "self serving" in some fashion depending on that definition?!
Good for Phil, good for biz/ Nike? Isn't that the point? Do things that benefit yourself, family, your business.
FWIW in this weird discussion of Phil, he and his wife have given billions to multiple organizations... academic, medical, community development. Some of the largest donations to Oregon are academically based. Endowments for professors, programs, scholarships, buildings.
The point is, weirdly, OSU fans would have zero complaints if the Nike was on the other foot. NONE, NADA. He's a billionaire he's made his money in some unscrupulous ways, like many many other wealthy folks. He & his wife support his Alma Mater. Nothing different than other big time donors all over the country.
It's this type of stuff that keeps the "jealous little brother" crap alive and well.
|
|
|
|
Post by NativeBeav on Nov 3, 2024 21:18:18 GMT -8
Bit confused... aren't most donations "self serving" in some fashion depending on that definition?! Good for Phil, good for biz/ Nike? Isn't that the point? Do things that benefit yourself, family, your business. FWIW in this weird discussion of Phil, he and his wife have given billions to multiple organizations... academic, medical, community development. Some of the largest donations to Oregon are academically based. Endowments for professors, programs, scholarships, buildings. The point is, weirdly, OSU fans would have zero complaints if the Nike was on the other foot. NONE, NADA. He's a billionaire he's made his money in some unscrupulous ways, like many many other wealthy folks. He & his wife support his Alma Mater. Nothing different than other big time donors all over the country. It's this type of stuff that keeps the "jealous little brother" crap alive and well. I may be in the minority, but speak for yourself, George. Moral relativism is one of the reasons this country is headed into the crapper. And no, I would not be happy if the shoe was on the other foot. Greed and corruption are not graded on the curve. When I choose to give to an organization, I do so freely, without expecting anything in return. No quid pro quo.
Not jealous of anything that slimy corrupt organization down south does. I have no control over it. But I do have control over how I choose to live, and what I choose to support. I sleep much better that way. You do you. Others mileage may vary.
|
|
|
|
Post by rgeorge on Nov 3, 2024 21:59:36 GMT -8
Bit confused... aren't most donations "self serving" in some fashion depending on that definition?! Good for Phil, good for biz/ Nike? Isn't that the point? Do things that benefit yourself, family, your business. FWIW in this weird discussion of Phil, he and his wife have given billions to multiple organizations... academic, medical, community development. Some of the largest donations to Oregon are academically based. Endowments for professors, programs, scholarships, buildings. The point is, weirdly, OSU fans would have zero complaints if the Nike was on the other foot. NONE, NADA. He's a billionaire he's made his money in some unscrupulous ways, like many many other wealthy folks. He & his wife support his Alma Mater. Nothing different than other big time donors all over the country. It's this type of stuff that keeps the "jealous little brother" crap alive and well. I may be in the minority, but speak for yourself, George. Moral relativism is one of the reasons this country is headed into the crapper. And no, I would not be happy if the shoe was on the other foot. Greed and corruption are not graded on the curve. When I choose to give to an organization, I do so freely, without expecting anything in return. No quid pro quo.
Not jealous of anything that slimy corrupt organization down south does. I have no control over it. But I do have control over how I choose to live, and what I choose to support. I sleep much better that way. You do you. Others mileage may vary.
Hate to break it to you. "Moral relativism" had been around pretty much since the beginning of mankind. And, you're maybe the only person ever that hasn't made moral judgment(s) relative to a particular viewpoint for family, friends, work, etc. Funny never saw a mention of someone telling you how to live, what to support?? Also funny, you get to choose how you live, and what you choose to support. But, you also get to choose how Phil lives? Who, what, how he supports? Yeah... you do you! |
|
