Teams
Forum List
Toggle sidebar

This Texas/Super conference thing has......

cmhawks99

cmhawks99

Well-Known Member
Nov 15, 2008
1,344
84
48
55
Bourbonnais, Il
me thinking. I don't believe Texas "really" wants to leave the Big 12, but I do think they are positioning for a power play with the rest of the Big 12. (As others have said) Now in this scenario it seems to me the best thing for ISU and maybe the rest of the Big 12 is to wave good by.

These threads are obviously over done, but it is the off-season..............:dull: so with that said there are some very solid schools out there that with the right hierarchy, AD, F-ball coach, B-ball coach and some cultivating they could be great additions to any league.

It seems like it is only a matter of time until the PAC 10 courts Utah/BYU. Those two universities are a little different in their out look and that is made all the more obvious by their lack of desire to invite Bose St in. Their inclusion would almost assuredly make them a BCS league yet they dawdle. Why?! They seem to be prideful if nothing else. Including a Fresno and Nevada would really pump them up yet they choose to hold back, what will they do if the PAC 10 comes calling (Byu/Utah and the league both) and is that what they are waiting for? Will they go?

At this time I don't really see CU, even if they pull a CSU with them as a viable PAC 10 option as they seem a little strapped financially.

As for the other aforementioned teams that have huge upsides..........UCF, UTEP under the right circumstances, Tulsa, maybe Sothern Miss, maybe Houston, maybe even a UAB. The SUN Belt has FAU and FIU that I think can be groomed and one of them has an enrollment of like 40K.

The point of all this is ISU and domr other Big 12 universities are already way behind the 8-ball as you know. They can't afford to get further behind a "league" school like Tehas. ISU is already the least affluent Big 12 school and filling their stadium isn't going to be enuff under the current situation. JP has honestly did a great job of marketing, but just for comparison if they some how got a chance to go Big 10 (not saying they would) they'd jump their income over night at least 10 mill.

All said when people get their dander up it ought to be towards Texas who seems to be positioning to take more of ISU's money. They should be forced to make that hard decision rather than caving towards their desires.

Chad
 
Last edited:
Ace000087 said:
Are you drunk? WTF
Click to expand...

　
　
I suppose I could be having a flashback but I haven't drank in 7 years. I'm not trying to run ISU down, in fact exactly the opposite. I think they are being hosed. I only went off the numbers I've seen posted in numerous thread links. I was shocked to find out they are 63rd in revenue generated behind every other Big 12 university. That puts them behind most every major college team and at a huge disadvantage, so no I'm not drunk or being persnickety.

Texas making a power play would hurt them even more. I don't see how that is good for the long time term health of the Big 12 and especially the North. It seems some leagues get that. Just not Texas and the Big 12 elite.

Chad
 
Just some numbers for 2008-2009 from
Equity in Athletics Data Analysis Cutting Tool Website

Line 14 (Grand Total Revenue)

Big 12
UT: $138,459,149
OU: $81,487,835
NU: $74,881,383
TAMU: $72,886,100
OSU: $71,805,825
KU: $70,614,953
MU: $57,778,668
CU: $49,859,693
BU: $48,545,254
KSU: $47,399,903
TT:$46,632,263
ISU: $45,813,189
average: $67,180,351
Difference between lowest revenue team and average: ($21,367,162)

Big Ten
OSU: $119,859,607
PSU: $95,978,243
UMich: $95,193,030
WI: $89,842,749
UIowa: $79,521,143
MSU: $75,624,811
UMinn: $70,322,992
IU: $60,615,528
PU: $59,919,102
UIllinois: $55,609,086
NU: $48,582,384
average: $77,369,880
Difference between lowest revenue team and average: ($28,787,496)

The disparity between the bottom and the average is greater in the Big Ten than it is in the Big 12.

Each conference has a rich school at the top that skews averages (more so in the Big 12). Taking out this top team (UT and OSU):

Big 12 average (excluding UT): $60,700,461
Difference between lowest revenue team and average (excluding UT): ($14,887,272)
Difference between average of bottom 4 and top 4 (excluding UT): ($28,167,634)

Big Ten average (excluding OSU): $73,120,907
Difference between lowest revenue team and average (excluding OSU): ($24,538,523)
Difference between average of bottom 4 and top 4 (excluding OSU): ($33,952,266)

If the ability to be successful in the conference across all sports is directly related to income, it would seem that joining the Big Ten would require a rather stout athletic budget. Overall, the disparity between the top and bottom in the Big Ten seems to be larger than it is in the Big 12.

If by some miracle the Big 12 could swing a TV deal that would bring in another $8-10 million per school, the Big 12 would be looking quite even with the Big Ten.

As for why ISU is at the bottom of the Big 12, go to Cyclones.com and look at the map showing % of ISU grads who donate to the athletic department. Not so good. It really wouldn't take that much for ISU to jump a few spots...
 
Last edited:
jbhtexas said:
Just some numbers for 2008-2009 from
Equity in Athletics Data Analysis Cutting Tool Website

Line 14 (Grand Total Revenue)

Big 12
UT: $138,459,149
OU: $81,487,835
NU: $74,881,383
TAMU: $72,886,100
OSU: $71,805,825
KU: $70,614,953
MU: $57,778,668
CU: $49,859,693
BU: $48,545,254
KSU: $47,399,903
TT:$46,632,263
ISU: $45,813,189
average: $67,180,351
Difference between lowest revenue team and average: ($21,367,162)

Big Ten
OSU: $119,859,607
PSU: $95,978,243
UMich: $95,193,030
WI: $89,842,749
UIowa: $79,521,143
MSU: $75,624,811
UMinn: $70,322,992
IU: $60,615,528
PU: $59,919,102
UIllinois: $55,609,086
NU: $48,582,384
average: $77,369,880
Difference between lowest revenue team and average: ($28,787,496)

The disparity between the bottom and the average is greater in the Big Ten than it is in the Big 12.

Each conference has a rich school at the top that skews averages (more so in the Big 12). Taking out this top team (UT and OSU):

Big 12 average (excluding UT): $60,700,461
Difference between lowest revenue team and average (excluding UT): ($14,887,272)
Difference between average of bottom 4 and top 4 (excluding UT): ($28,167,634)

Big Ten average (excluding OSU): $73,120,907
Difference between lowest revenue team and average (excluding OSU): ($24,538,523)
Difference between average of bottom 4 and top 4 (excluding OSU): ($33,952,266)

If the ability to be successful in the conference across all sports is directly related to income, it would seem that joining the Big Ten would require a rather stout athletic budget. Overall, the disparity between the top and bottom in the Big Ten seems to be larger than it is in the Big 12.

If by some miracle the Big 12 could swing a TV deal that would bring in another $8-10 million per school, the Big 12 would be looking quite even with the Big Ten.

As for why ISU is at the bottom of the Big 12, go to Cyclones.com and look at the map showing % of ISU grads who donate to the athletic department. Not so good. It really wouldn't take that much for ISU to jump a few spots...
Click to expand...

When you're doing statistical analysis, don't you have to throw the high and low to get a true representation, and in this case throw out ISU and jNU?
 
jbhtexas said:
Just some numbers for 2008-2009 from
Equity in Athletics Data Analysis Cutting Tool Website

Big 12
UT: $138,459,149
OU: $81,487,835
NU: $74,881,383
TAMU: $72,886,100
OSU: $71,805,825
KU: $70,614,953
MU: $57,778,668
CU: $49,859,693
BU: $48,545,254
KSU: $47,399,903
TT:$46,632,263
ISU: $45,813,189
average: $67,180,351
Difference between lowest revenue team and average: ($21,367,162)

Big Ten
OSU: $119,859,607
PSU: $95,978,243
UMich: $95,193,030
WI: $89,842,749
UIowa: $79,521,143
MSU: $75,624,811
UMinn: $70,322,992
IU: $60,615,528
PU: $59,919,102
UIllinois: $55,609,086
NU: $48,582,384
average: $77,369,880
Difference between lowest revenue team and average: ($28,787,496)

The disparity between the bottom and the average is greater in the Big Ten than it is in the Big 12.

Each conference has a rich school at the top that skews averages (more so in the Big 12). Taking out this top team (UT and OSU):

Big 12 average (excluding UT): $60,700,461
Difference between lowest revenue team and average (excluding UT): ($14,887,272)
Difference between average of bottom 4 and top 4 (excluding UT): ($28,167,634)

Big Ten average (excluding OSU): $73,120,907
Difference between lowest revenue team and average (excluding OSU): ($24,538,523)
Difference between average of bottom 4 and top 4 (excluding OSU): ($33,952,266)

If the ability to be successful in the conference across all sports is directly related to income, it would seem that joining the Big Ten would require a rather stout athletic budget. Overall, the disparity between the top and bottom in the Big Ten seems to be larger than it is in the Big 12.

If by some miracle the Big 12 could swing a TV deal that would bring in another $8-10 million per school, the Big 12 would be looking quite even with the Big Ten.

As for why ISU is at the bottom of the Big 12, go to Cyclones.com and look at the map showing % of ISU grads who donate to the athletic department. Not so good. It really wouldn't take that much for ISU to jump a few spots...
Click to expand...

You points are spot on. What I would say, though, is that those averages and difference, I don't think, matter much as where the bottom of the conference is at in the Big Ten relative to the Big 12. NW his higher than 4 of our schools and is close to five. Illinois is far ahead of Northwestern and would be above 5 teams within our conference. I would also say that the ISU, Baylor, TT and KSUs of the world have larger followings than a NW yet are at or below their revenue. When you look at ISU realistically, we will ikely be a bottom half team in terms of money for our existence. That is just how it will likely be so I would prefer to look at where that lands us in terms of a pure dollar amount and not neccesarily where we are in relation to the top. I don't see us ever being close to the top. Your point is well made and I think it speaks to correct the exagerrated opinion that the Big 10 holds more parity than the Big 12. When you look at the averages especially without the top team, as you did, the Big 12 is actually a little more even. I also think it is kind of hard to compare these because the Big Ten, geographically, is perfect for fan base. It takes up every major Midwest market along with Pennsylvania.
 
Cyclonepride said:
The Big 12's inexplicable tv deals have to be #1 on the agenda. I can't imagine that being botched any worse than it has been.
Click to expand...

The Big 12s TV deal will never be as lucrative as the Big 10s. We simply do not have the markets they have. That being said, we still have a lot of room to improve.
 
Cyclonepride said:
The Big 12's inexplicable tv deals have to be #1 on the agenda. I can't imagine that being botched any worse than it has been.
Click to expand...

The Big 12 gets plenty of exposure on FSN/ABC; what they need to do is scrap the "per-appearance" clause (or whatever it is), and split all regular season television revenues equally.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nickcyv
I'm surprised why Texas would even want to leave the conference. They are competitive in about every sport and they benefit the most from the TV deal since they are always on the tube and have the biggest budget in the conferece. Can't imagine another conference is going to be able to sweeten that deal anymore right? If they went to the Big 10 they'd probably kill everyone in FB because of the talent base they recruit out of compared to the midwest teams.

I'm starting to become a little concerned with the future of the Big 12 with some of the rumors floating around. Would hate to see the Big schools leave because I doubt the Big 12 would ever be able to replace them with a school nearly as good which would hurt the conference with bowl bids and NCAA tourney bids too.
 
TarHeelHawk said:
The Big 12 gets plenty of exposure on FSN/ABC; what they need to do is scrap the "per-appearance" clause (or whatever it is), and split all regular season television revenues equally.
Click to expand...

But we lack the Big 10's "every single game on TV no matter how bad the two teams playing in it are". The two worst teams in the Big 10 will make be on TV, no matter what with the B10 Network. The ISU/TAMU game wasn't on ANYWHERE and they both made a bowl. The Big 12 needs a way to get every game on TV.

The revenue sharing would be GREAT, but I think it's a harder sell. How the hell did tOSU and Michigan ever sign on to that?
 
Last edited:
TarHeelHawk said:
The Big 12 gets plenty of exposure on FSN/ABC; what they need to do is scrap the "per-appearance" clause (or whatever it is), and split all regular season television revenues equally.
Click to expand...

Tarheelhawk nailed it. Hardly anyone is ever going to compete with Texas financially they are the premier athletic department in the NCAA. Yet, something has to be done in the Big 12 to close the gap!
 
TarHeelHawk said:
When you're doing statistical analysis, don't you have to throw the high and low to get a true representation, and in this case throw out ISU and jNU?
Click to expand...

ISU is well within 1 standard deviation ($25,965,245) of the Big 12 average. However, NwU is not within 1 standard deviation ($21,376,873) of the Big Ten average, so a case could be made for excluding NwU. Neither is UIllinois for that matter.
 
Al_4_State said:
But we lack the Big 10's "every single game on TV no matter how bad the two teams playing in it are". The two worst teams in the Big 10 will make be on TV, no matter what with the B10 Network. The ISU/TAMU game wasn't on ANYWHERE and they both made a bowl. The Big 12 needs a way to get every game on TV.

The revenue sharing would be GREAT, but I think it's a harder sell. How the hell did tOSU and Michigan ever sign on to that?
Click to expand...

A better question would be why did the AD's of the Big 12 (or whoever) sign a deal where the the lower tier schools get the bottom of the barrel? The AD's at places like ISU, Baylor, K-State, etc.., had to know what they were signing up for.
 
I was listening to Miller and Deace's podcast about this and I think they are missing some points.

First, in order for the current schools to back Texas joining the conference they're going to want more money to justify the additional expenses. There's going to be a big bill for each of these schools to send their teams to Texas. This may be hard to do for some schools especially for the non-revenue teams.

Second, yes adding Texas would increase the TV revenue for the BTN, but does it add enough once you give Texas their share as well? The advertising on the BTN is still rather sparse at times and I wonder how much Fox is making off of it (or are they losing money). To go ask them to drop another guaranteed yearly amount may be tough to do in this type of economic situation.

My point is, I just don't think that it is a slam dunk that the Texas to the Big 10 is being portrayed. Really there is the same travel situations for the Pac-10 adding Colorado. That may be magnified since there isn't the backing of a TV station as well.
 
Al_4_State said:
But we lack the Big 10's "every single game on TV no matter how bad the two teams playing in it are". The two worst teams in the Big 10 will make be on TV, no matter what with the B10 Network. The ISU/TAMU game wasn't on ANYWHERE and they both made a bowl. The Big 12 needs a way to get every game on TV.
The revenue sharing would be GREAT, but I think it's a harder sell. How the hell did tOSU and Michigan ever sign on to that?
Click to expand...

For this very reason, I think that for the next TV deal, the Big12 needs to talk to NBC. Their family of networks would be a great place to put all conference games on. Then you could start the talks with Comcast about adding a Big12 network in the future.
 
TarHeelHawk said:
A better question would be why did the AD's of the Big 12 (or whoever) sign a deal where the the lower tier schools get the bottom of the barrel? The AD's at places like ISU, Baylor, K-State, etc.., had to know what they were signing up for.
Click to expand...

Good question. How long has the Big 10 been in the business of revenue sharing? Perhaps it was unheard of in 1995. I have no idea.

Clonehomer said:
For this very reason, I think that for the next TV deal, the Big12 needs to talk to NBC. Their family of networks would be a great place to put all conference games on. Then you could start the talks with Comcast about adding a Big12 network in the future.
Click to expand...

This would be a great idea. NBC could be doing so much more than showing the one Notre Dame game that they show.
 
TarHeelHawk said:
A better question would be why did the AD's of the Big 12 (or whoever) sign a deal where the the lower tier schools get the bottom of the barrel? The AD's at places like ISU, Baylor, K-State, etc.., had to know what they were signing up for.
Click to expand...

And their alternative was.....? The schools you listed have no leverage; we're all dependent on the Texas, OU, and NU bowl money and revenue.
 
CYdTracked said:
I'm surprised why Texas would even want to leave the conference. They are competitive in about every sport and they benefit the most from the TV deal since they are always on the tube and have the biggest budget in the conferece. Can't imagine another conference is going to be able to sweeten that deal anymore right? If they went to the Big 10 they'd probably kill everyone in FB because of the talent base they recruit out of compared to the midwest teams.

I'm starting to become a little concerned with the future of the Big 12 with some of the rumors floating around. Would hate to see the Big schools leave because I doubt the Big 12 would ever be able to replace them with a school nearly as good which would hurt the conference with bowl bids and NCAA tourney bids too.
Click to expand...

Although I'm on record for saying they will consider it I still don't think they'll go. For one thing, and this might be unpopular, but in truth your above statement isn't 100% accurate. Yes Texas has "The" recruiting base. The problem is as a rule the Big 10 teams have been producing way more NFL talent than all but Texas and certainly tOSU is on par with them. There are three teams in the south Okie St-13, TT-7 and Baylor-7 whom togethere have less NFL alumni than Iowa. In the North ISU with 7, KU-6 & Mizzou have 13 which places the 6 of them together only marginally ahead of Texas' total of 42....So Texas will actually be facing more talent on average, not necessarily better teams per se as Big 10 QB play has been horrendous but certainly more NFL caliber athletes.

When you throw in a change of venue and weather who knows? Obviously it isn't a no-brainer either way but I say they don't eventually go. For the Big 12 and ISU though the worst thing that could happen is it turns into a power play for Texas to rob even more from the poor.

Texas
 
Last edited:
The original poster said Texas is lining themselves up for a power play.... Power play for what??? They already write the rules for the Big 12. They make the most money. All big 12 north schools subsidize them.

ISU would be better off if they left. They have wayyyyyy to much pull in one conference.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Help Support Us

Become a patron
Top Bottom