Just because there's been a shortage of drama coming out of Lincoln lately. When Nebraska/Rutgers/Maryland joined, they were not immediately given full revenue sharing, whereas USC and UCLA will receive full revenue sharing immediately.
-
Welcome to The Platinum Board! We are a Nebraska Cornhuskers news source and community. Please click "Log In" or "Register" above to gain access to the forums.
Nebraska wants more money from the Big Ten?
- Thread starter Mavsker
- Start date
That SOB Van Owen
In Mombasa drinkin’ gin
Moderator
69
Elite Member
tPB OG
Happy Ending Society
- 7,527
- 2020
- 23,570
USC and UCLA added revenue to everyone’s pockets.
I don't blame them for giving it a shot. It's definitely one of those "hey you can't blame me for trying" type of things.
Problem is, is it worth the social media ridicule all 3 schools are going to get. The haters will be out in full force.
Problem is, is it worth the social media ridicule all 3 schools are going to get. The haters will be out in full force.
They're saying "we had to wait 6 yrs for full vesting" and you then went out and gave USC/UCLA immediate vesting. 'you owe us damages or unpaid conference shares for revenue we did not receive in those 6 yrs' etc.
If that broke some sort of conference policy it's worth trying to get a couple extra bucks from. Probably a long shot.
Technically so did Nebraska, Rutgers, and Maryland
There might have been a “most favored nations” clause in the contracts that basically said they wouldn’t give future schools a better deal than what Nebraska, Maryland and Rutgers got
Surely the 6 yr vesting thing had to be written somewhere in some conference bylaws maybe?
If you could establish that that was the standard and then that standard was broken, I think you have a case.
This very well may have been discussed as part of the USC/UCLA revenue sharing discussion. I doubt that all three of these schools would be pursuing this if they didn't have reason to believe the conference was receptive to it.
#Reparations
That Flugaur guy has been saying that the lower payouts upon entry for NU/MD/RU were to buy into BTN because the other schools had paid for their shares, but that when Fox increased its ownership to 60%, all of the schools were made whole for the BTN investment, and that is why USC/UCLA can come in at full revenue.
No idea if he knows what he's talking about, but that makes some sense.
No idea if he knows what he's talking about, but that makes some sense.
Couldn’t find if PSU had a waiting period. But if only those schools dealt with this then I think it’s fair to ask. Otherwise chalk it up to a change in times.
And if the next set of schools don’t have to wait six years then that’s more reasons to complain.
And if the next set of schools don’t have to wait six years then that’s more reasons to complain.
What would be hilarious is if the B1G added KU but was like, you guys need to wait 6 yrs for your full share lol
Three teams that don't move the needle are looking for more money.
Makes sense.
Makes sense.
So are we like the women’s soccer of the B1G now? Sweet.
Similar threads
