Works for me as long as they take into account Football Championships ever since the league increased their math discrepancy last year.

Ohio State wants Big Ten revenue change while alienating league

Some more comments:

Ohio State's Big Ten greed could spark college football super league

Ohio State pushing Big Ten revenue change unlike other leagues

They've got it SO GOOD, and they want to kill the Golden Goose for everyone?

Ohio State is asking for a conference revenue share model that the ACC, for the most part, has adopted.

Under Eat What You Kill, keep your earned postseason winnings, and Eyes on the Prize, more money for teams with the most-watched games, OBD like TOSU would benefit. The five B1G teams with Blue Chip Football rosters, OBD, TOSU, Michigan, Penn State, and USC, would benefit.

I get TOSU wanting more revenue than Rutgers and Purdue. With direct Revenue Sharing post-House, revenue is more important than ever. And NIL is not going away.

To think that bottom-feeder P4 programs will improve with equal revenue shares is a pipe dream.

TOSU's suggested revenue format is happening in the ACC and will happen, IMO, in the Power 2 with the next media deals if not before.

CFB is a B1G, Big Business. Teams investing more money, that demand an unequal revenue share, and improved ROI make absolute business sense. A Football Super Conference is coming, and likely sooner than we think.

52 minutes ago, Steven A said:

Works for me as long as they take into account Football Championships ever since the league increased their math discrepancy last year.

Ohio State wants Big Ten revenue change while alienating league

Matt Hayes should move into the 21st century. CFB is no longer an after-school sport played on Saturday afternoon in the sunshine.

Hayes and other writers, like Stewart Mandel, have benefited from CFB being a big business. Yet, they want the good old days? Clemson and FSU won, got the revenue share model they wanted, along with a decreasing exit fee.

If TOSU is Rome, is the ACC Carthage? I get the populist one-size-fits-all argument, but it is not grounded in any business model.

In what capitalist enterprise does an entity that invests more money in its product and receives a better return than those that invest less agree to split its share equally with less successful competitors? Where and when this model has been tried out, entire economies have failed.

This is the same faux outrage thrown at Tony Petitti for wanting a committee that does its business in the dark to disappear in favor of automatic qualifiers. Since the inception of the BCS, the model Petitti desires mirrors the on-field results.

'Facts are stubborn things.' John Adams

31 minutes ago, Jon Joseph said:

Ohio State is asking for a conference revenue share model that the ACC, for the most part, has adopted.

Under Eat What You Kill, keep your earned postseason winnings, and Eyes on the Prize, more money for teams with the most-watched games, OBD like TOSU would benefit. The five B1G teams with Blue Chip Football rosters, OBD, TOSU, Michigan, Penn State, and USC, would benefit.

I get TOSU wanting more revenue than Rutgers and Purdue. With direct Revenue Sharing post-House, revenue is more important than ever. And NIL is not going away.

To think that bottom-feeder P4 programs will improve with equal revenue shares is a pipe dream.

TOSU's suggested revenue format is happening in the ACC and will happen, IMO, in the Power 2 with the next media deals if not before.

CFB is a B1G, Big Business. Teams investing more money, that demand an unequal revenue share, and improved ROI make absolute business sense. A Football Super Conference is coming, and likely sooner than we think.

Ill never believe a super conference will ever come to fruition? Lets be clear, these teams want to shine, but they relish in getting the easy victory. A super conference in the NCAA would produce a ton of 7-5 or 6-6 teams. These super schools need the mid tier to low bottom feeders to pat themselves on the back after dominant wins.

IMO, as long as the B1G remains the conference, revenue sharing should be equal through the regular season and playoff teams share playoff revenue.

A stronger conference, as deep as possible, only makes the whole better.

Especially for rankings. And rankings are needed to make playoff.

The problem with the old Pac12 was that half the country thought it was USuC and everyone else. So a win against Utah, or ASU, etc carried no weight with voters.

Whereas beating Ol Miss (or any SEC team) was a great win.

You get my drift.

tOSU wanting unequal shares is selfish and short-sighted. It's also a move to try and get in front of potential west coast dominance with OBD, UW and USuC surging on the horizon. (Oregon is already there) without full revenue shares

Something tOSU is overlooking is the need for mid-level teams to be in- conference to aid in stacking the win column. If PSU, UM, tOSU, USC, UW, Oregon, et al, played each other every year, there would be a lot of cannibalizing and hurting chances of making playoff.

Let's recognize the need for "team" play and try and lift each other. A strong conference isn't needed for pro league, but I think a strong conference is mandatory in college.

Especially when deciding who makes playoffs is often so subjective.

42 minutes ago, Lrod said:

A super conference in the NCAA would produce a ton of 7-5 or 6-6 teams.

That is true; we need cannon-fodder...

We did try to trademark the word “THE”

What is tOSUs leverage? Leaving for the NFL?

I’d politely tell them to sit and spin.