[QUOTE=Cyrok;2275806]The concern here is that the conference is moving from 50% to 76% on tier 2 (where ISU plays - so we have to share more of the money we would be getting) and the conference is not moving from 50% to 76% in the tier 1 games (where ISU rarely plays.) So it's possible that ISU would have made more money (percentage-wise of what was available) under the old agreement. This is especially annoying when the deal has been portrayed in the media as being more balanced.
The way I read that its not the conference splitting up Tier 2 money going from 50% in 76% in just Tier 2, but rather Tier being completely even distribution and Tier 1 going from I'm not sure what to 50% evenly distributed equaling a total change in even distribution change from 57% to 76%.
Now whether that's better for the have-nots I guessed I'd need to see actual numbers to decide.
I'm not saying that ISU isn't going to be making more money...they ARE. What I'm saying is that all the talk about evening up the revenue split and helping out the lower revenue schools like KSU, ISU, Baylor may be BS (unless I understand it wrong). Here's a scenerio:
Texas is on Tier 1 six times during the season, Tier 2 five times and the Bevo Network once. It used to be that everyone got a 50% share of all TV money and then paid per appearance. So UT would have gotten 6 "Tier 1" shares and 5 "Tier 2" shares. Now, they're going to get Tier 2 money every week no matter if they're on that Tier or not plus keep their extra Tier 1 money.
What Deace says about "Don't pee on me and tell me it's raining"...that seems to apply to all the talk about the conference being more equal. Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems to me that UT/OU saw that Tier 2 was going to be worth more and decided they wanted that equal sharing while keeping Tier 1 the same as it was.
Your rational is correct with the asumption that everyone plays the same number of Tier 1 games that they used to, but that's a poor assumption. We have quite a bit better probability of being selected for Tier 1 games now. Since there are 2 less teams in the conference and presumably the Big12 will still get roughly the same number (or even more) of the Tier 1 broadcasts, that means ISU is more likely to get selected for a Tier 1 broadcast. On top of that, we play one more conference game than before, which for most years means that we traded a patsy for a conference game which also increases the probability that we get a Tier 1 broadcast.
Your argument also assumes that we won't or can't become a team that is in the top 1/2 of the conference. If 4 years from now, we're ranked and competing for a conference title, then all of this is moot.
The way I read that its not the conference splitting up Tier 2 money going from 50% in 76% in just Tier 2, but rather Tier being completely even distribution and Tier 1 going from I'm not sure what to 50% evenly distributed equaling a total change in even distribution change from 57% to 76%.
Now whether that's better for the have-nots I guessed I'd need to see actual numbers to decide.
That's the way I read it, too.
They must be using the 2012 season as the measuring stick as it's the first year of the new Tier 2 deal. So, extrapolating out the math:
100% of Tier 2 ($90M) = $90M
50% of Tier 1 (which must be $82M in 2012) = $41M
so $131M out of $172M = 76.1% equally shared for 2012
When the Tier 1 is renegotiated :
Scenario 1 (Tier 1 @ $200M per year)
100% of Tier 2 ($90M) = $90M
50% of Tier 1 = $100M
$190M out of $290M = 65.5% equally shared
Scenario 2 (Tier 1 @ $270M per year)
100% of Tier 2 ($90M) = $90M
50% of Tier 1 = $135M
$225M out of $360M = 62.5% equally shared
So the more money the new deal is, the less we're equally sharing. But, we can improve our program significantly with this new money and try to get ourselves on Network TV more and earn some of that 50%. If there's around 20 Tier 1 games each year that's a huge reward. Under scenario 2 that's 6.75M per game!
The concern here is that the conference is moving from 50% to 76% on tier 2 (where ISU plays - so we have to share more of the money we would be getting) and the conference is not moving from 50% to 76% in the tier 1 games (where ISU rarely plays.) So it's possible that ISU would have made more money (percentage-wise of what was available) under the old agreement. This is especially annoying when the deal has been portrayed in the media as being more balance.
Originally Posted by Frak
I'm not saying that ISU isn't going to be making more money...they ARE. What I'm saying is that all the talk about evening up the revenue split and helping out the lower revenue schools like KSU, ISU, Baylor may be BS (unless I understand it wrong). Here's a scenerio:
Texas is on Tier 1 six times during the season, Tier 2 five times and the Bevo Network once. It used to be that everyone got a 50% share of all TV money and then paid per appearance. So UT would have gotten 6 "Tier 1" shares and 5 "Tier 2" shares. Now, they're going to get Tier 2 money every week no matter if they're on that Tier or not plus keep their extra Tier 1 money.
What Deace says about "Don't pee on me and tell me it's raining"...that seems to apply to all the talk about the conference being more equal. Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems to me that UT/OU saw that Tier 2 was going to be worth more and decided they wanted that equal sharing while keeping Tier 1 the same as it was.
I see your points the only way to argue about this is to actually see some figures. I made a spread sheet comparing revenue with the old plan and new plan. The Dollar amounts are guesses but the actual figures don't matter since it is based on percentages. I split out the revenue that ISU would get vs the "Fat Cats" who are schools who play in the majority of the tier 1 games.
What is missing are the number of tier 1 games that schools like Texas played last year. If someone has those then we can project the money they would get under the new plan.
Your rational is correct with the asumption that everyone plays the same number of Tier 1 games that they used to, but that's a poor assumption. We have quite a bit better probability of being selected for Tier 1 games now. Since there are 2 less teams in the conference and presumably the Big12 will still get roughly the same number (or even more) of the Tier 1 broadcasts, that means ISU is more likely to get selected for a Tier 1 broadcast. On top of that, we play one more conference game than before, which for most years means that we traded a patsy for a conference game which also increases the probability that we get a Tier 1 broadcast.
The 50% portion of the Tier 1 pool that is not shared equally will not have Tier 1 appearances as the only criteria for distribution.
If ISU has a Tier 2 game moved from Saturday to Friday/Thursday, it's my understanding ISU would be compensated for such a move from the Tier 1 pool. ISU's contract with Iowa as a BCS non-conference game could also net ISU some money from the Tier 1 pool even if it ends up on a Tier 2 network.
Also, when the new Tier 1 contract numbers are determined, the formula will likely be adjusted.
Trust that JP and the other ADs know what they are doing but I understand that is difficult for the numerous defeatist posters on this board.
The 50% portion of the Tier 1 pool that is not shared equally will not have Tier 1 appearances as the only criteria for distribution.
If ISU has a Tier 2 game moved from Saturday to Friday/Thursday, it's my understanding ISU would be compensated for such a move from the Tier 1 pool. ISU's contract with Iowa as a BCS non-conference game could also net ISU some money from the Tier 1 pool even if it ends up on a Tier 2 network.
Also, when the new Tier 1 contract numbers are determined, the formula will likely be adjusted.
Trust that JP and the other ADs know what they are doing but I understand that is difficult for the numerous defeatist posters on this board.
Do you have source? I ask because that could be significant if true.
What is missing are the number of tier 1 games that schools like Texas played last year. If someone has those then we can project the money they would get under the new plan.
I calculated the number of 2010 appearances per tier in another thread:
Do you have source? I ask because that could be significant if true.
This article mentions the following: "The remaining 24 percent of television money will be distributed according to several criteria, including number of appearances, quality of competition and willingness to move games to accommodate television. The new plan does not affect so-called third-tier rights such Texas' new Longhorn Network."
This article also mentions willingness to move games: "There also will be additional money available to schools that move games to accommodate television and may suffer at the gate because of it. If there’s a game a network wants to have on a Thursday night and a possibility of losing some gate revenue, there will be some incentive (money) for that,” Beebe said." Big 12 becomes more equitable in terms of revenue sharing - KansasCity.com
Thanks to mred's contribution of the number of Tier 1 appearances last year here is a spreadsheet to give an idea of what the new distribution of TV revenue will be with the Tier 1 impact.
I'm assuming each Tier 1 appearance is equal. The total $ amount for Tier 2 is based on the new deal announced by Fox. The Tier 1 $ amount is a guess based on amount of the total TV deal that the Pac 12 made. Also synapticwave suggested that there will be more Tier 1 appearances available this year since Nebby and CU are no longer with the league and they accounted for 9 total T1 appearances last year.
Note: The distribution for the Old Plan isn't accurate because I don't know how they distribute TV money per appearance currently.
Last edited by bosco; 06-10-2011 at 05:41 PM.
Reason: corrected tier 1 pool
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Frak 
Bookmarks