Skip to content

Playoff revenue-split subcommittee features four ‘Big Five’ commissioners

Mike Slive AP

One major detail of a four-team playoff that remains to be finalized is how revenue will be distributed to… well… no one really knows.

Thursday, college football’s power brokers took one step toward resolving that.

Interim Big 12 commissioner Chuck Neinas told Kirk Bohls of the Austin-American Statesman that a revenue-split subcommittee has been formed and will feature six conference commissioners. They are as follows: Bob Bowlsby (Big 12); Jim Delany (Big Ten); Mike Slive (SEC, pictured); John Swofford (ACC);  Jon Steinbrecher (MAC); Craig Thompson (Mountain West).

Noticably absent is any representative from the Pac-12 and Big East, but the latter conference is currently in the middle of trying to find a new commissioner following the “resignation” of John Marinatto.

Permalink 13 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Atlantic Coast Conference, Big 12 Conference, Big Ten Conference, Mid-American Conference, Mountain West Conference, Rumor Mill, Southeastern Conference, Top Posts
13 Responses to “Playoff revenue-split subcommittee features four ‘Big Five’ commissioners”
  1. ancientcougar says: Jun 28, 2012 8:22 PM

    Business as usual.

  2. parkcityute says: Jun 28, 2012 8:56 PM

    Are they going to leave out the PAC but include the MAC and Mountain West?

  3. drummerhoff says: Jun 28, 2012 9:18 PM

    Seems fair: An even split with 3 of the Big conference commissioners and 3 of the ‘other’ conference commissioners.

  4. Deb says: Jun 28, 2012 10:04 PM

    @drummerhoff …

    My gut reaction is that it’s outrageous to omit a Pac-12 rep from this subcommittee while including the MAC and Mountain West. Your comment at least makes it seem like a rational decision. Still … it’s difficult to see how the Pac-12 would be okay with this arrangement.

  5. WingT says: Jun 29, 2012 12:23 AM

    The revenue distribution for this should be very easy to solve in order to be fair. Pay expenses for participating playoff teams and then take the total and spread across all members.

    The Playoffs should benefit NCAA football, not just the participating schools.

    roll tide

  6. WingT says: Jun 29, 2012 12:25 AM

    remainder, not total…sorry, Budweiser kicking in

  7. drummerhoff says: Jun 29, 2012 9:19 AM


    Scott & the Pac 12 will be well taken care of by the B1G on the subcommittee. Its clear the Pac 12, B1G, Big 12 & SEC were on equal footing in the BcS and that will continue.
    The conference to watch is the ACC. Are they going to receive revenue like the Big 12 B1G/Pac12 or SEC … or are they going to get a smaller share like the Mountain West, MAC & other bit players?
    My guess the subcommittee will come up with a model that – in theory – grants equal access to the 6 bowl games for ALL conferences and – in reality – unequal revenue distribution with the ‘Big 4’ keeping most of the money.

  8. thefiesty1 says: Jun 29, 2012 9:36 AM

    Why is Neinus still around commenting as spokesman for the Big12? Didn’t they get a new commissioner the 15th of June? Where is he? Is he mute?

  9. Deb says: Jun 29, 2012 10:53 AM

    @drummerhoff …

    Thanks. It makes sense that the Big Four (I’m not convinced the ACC is part of a “Big Five”) are banding together to ensure their own interests are protected. And since those four conferences are the Big Draw, I have no problem with them earning a higher percentage of the revenues. If I ever see a Boise State/Rutgers title game that captivates the nation, I’ll revise my thinking on that 😉

  10. orthomarine says: Jun 29, 2012 11:00 AM

    I don’t think it so much about who is the big draw, but if Boise and Rutgers for some reason got that shot at NC game; they should be paid the same as everyone else. As long as that is the name of the game, I could care less who is sitting at the table.

  11. drummerhoff says: Jun 29, 2012 2:36 PM


    When it all pans out, i firmly believe that – on face value – every school will have equal access and a fair chance to earn equal revenue…

    But the devil is in the details: Strength of Schedule will prevent schools like Rutger & Boise from having access and a larger share of revenue. And I am going as far as to say a one loss ACC school will not get access or la large share of revenue, but a one loss Big 12, SEC, Pac12 & B1G will get access and a large share of revenue.

    The Big 4 get to have their cake & eat it to: They can claim equal access and revenue for all, but the rules governing access & revenue favor the top 4 money-making conferences.

  12. Deb says: Jun 29, 2012 5:34 PM

    @orthomarine …

    Whoa! I didn’t mean Boise State and Rutgers shouldn’t get the title share if they make the title game. Of course, the teams in the title game–no matter who they are–will take the big prize money. I was referring to what drummerhoff is saying about revenue-sharing in general. And no, I don’t believe conferences no one watch should share equally with the conferences that are bringing in all the television revenues. Sorry.

  13. orthomarine says: Jun 30, 2012 8:58 AM


    I did not think you did; I more or less just agreeing with your statement but with a diff POV

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!