https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/Articles/2025/02/05... /

How is everyone's morning going?

Another athletic department printing money on the backs of our lackluster contract negotiations.

Let's do a little math.

Annual commission from Aramark to Nebraska is $5.8m. They've got 7 home games next year. Payout of about $820k per game and about 80k attendees per game. About $10 per fan, per game.

There'll be about 220 Ohio fans there. Should we send them an invoice for our $2200?

We don't play them next year? And they managed to fill out a full schedule? I guess they found out about one of the other 200 teams that would take their money? Weird.

Or, maybe they were too busy working with their lawyers to play the SEC out of conference -- which you are very, very sure they don't want to do -- to give us a call for next year? I'm sure if it had crossed their mind they'd have definitely paid us 6x the going rate just in time to start sharing 20% of revenue with players.

That won't be an issue. They could reach out to Houston Christian or Akron again - even though they play them this year. But on speed dial is Northern Ill who they played in 2022 and will play again in 2027. Georgia Southern (2022), La. Tech (2023), UTEP (2024 and 2028), Northern Iowa (2024), UTEP (2024 and 2028), Maybe they add to the contract with South Dakota St. now inked for 2028 and 2030. Of course they already also have (in addition to Ohio) in 2026 another game with North Dakota - they played them in 2022 as well.

Now of note is that none of these are being paid $8 million for a single game. And Nebraska is sacrificing some fans for these pay games. Last year the games with UTEP and Northern Iowa drew an average of 86,286 fans in attendance - well below the 87,194 they averaged for Big10 games or the 86,906 they got for the game with Prime and his Buffalo. But 99% of the average still works for Nebraska. And as the saying goes, "whether they are fans of UTEP, Ohio, or Penn State they will still buy a ticket from us at full price and drink a Coca-Cola -- which by the way we are going to contract out."

Nope, I formed a scheduling consortium with the entire Group of 5. We've all agreed that all scheduling matters run through the consortium, and we believe the starting price is $8 Million for Tier A P4 Opponents, $5 Million for Tier B P4 Opponents, and $3 Million for Tier C P4 Opponents. NAIA and Division II schools have also joined the consortium.

Looks like Nebraska will have to forfeit a home game in 2027 when they are forced to go to Lubbock to play Texas Tech on the back half of a home and home. And....oops, they will probably lose that game, so their playoff hopes will be greatly reduced.

Next arugment...MORONS. I'm over here playing chess while you idiots are playing pocket pool.

Bishop Sycamore will always play, anytime, anywhere, twice in a week. And for less than others.

You are not wrong in how to make that work. But it’s the same problem the trucking industry has. Too many folks worried about feeding themselves, too many step children in the mix to organize and get everyone on board. If you can tell me how you do that, I’m on board.

No i got it. not only do they sell out, but as i noted 99% of the seats are actually occupied. and will be for the much anticipated showdown with Houston Christian this fall. same at penn state for Villanova. the opponent doesn’t matter at the power brands. their fans will show up. So no need to pay anyone $8 million to come to town.

Again. Just bizarre stuff here.

I know none of us are as smart as you, so please - explain it like we're MORONS: how on flat earth you have come to these conclusions that this - in any way - makes any sense?

I mean, at the tip-top end teams are making $5M-$8M in revenue - not profit - per sold-out game. You're under the impression that a team like Nebraska should take a loss into the millions just for the luxury of playing... the Ohio Bobcats... which won't move the needle for them, and by your previous post would draw 200 OU fans, and those fans who attend are morons. (of course)

So again - we don't travel well, and you insult those who do... so what is exactly is Nebraska's incentive to take a $3M loss? Just to beat us for a win? There are 200 other teams in D1. Most operate at a net-loss. Your idea is to forgo $1.5M because they have more money at the end of the season, therefor you give us more money - not bc we deserve it, not because we draw a large crowd, not because we spent more - but because you have money, me want money. Your grand plan is to collude with every team in college football not to take the money that most athletic departments need? WVU operated the entire season at nearly a -$2M loss. Where are they coming up with $8M to pay for a non-con schedule? https://www.wvgazettemail.com/sports/blue_gold_news/wvu-a...

It doesn't take a degree in economics or an mba, I have both anyway, to see this makes absolutely zero sense even in its most infantile of understanding.

It’s not illegal if the courts do not rule it illegal. In todays world the restraints of big business are being unleashed daily.

The "big business" in this case is a consortium of 200 college football programs that all lose money? You think a pro-business court is going to favor them relative to the actual businesses -- the Big 10, SEC, and the like?

So, scoring at home, for this plan to work courts need to decide cost fixing of fine, the P4 has to accept that without the obvious retaliation of breaking away and stopping their revenue share, and they have to pay these very expensive games instead of making more money to play each other more.

This whole take is nonsense and everybody knows it.

Are there any industries that only share profit with workers? Labor is an operating cost, and you pay for those with revenue, not profit, right?

A company can't choose not to pay employees because it's taking a loss. I don't really see the case that a school shouldn't have to share revenue created unless they don't spend too much of it.

Honestly, the NCAA should count itself incredibly lucky, as should the member schools, that there's a settlement (albeit a tenuous one) that doesn't involve employment.