I'd bet it has helped us tremendously - I'm pretty sure we receive a helluva lot more money from the Big XII than we contribute. We're lucky to be in the Big XII.Quote:
Originally Posted by LindenCy
Printable View
I'd bet it has helped us tremendously - I'm pretty sure we receive a helluva lot more money from the Big XII than we contribute. We're lucky to be in the Big XII.Quote:
Originally Posted by LindenCy
The Big 10 doesnt want and will never want ISU so that point is moot
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tornado man
I think you are right that we get more money. The Texas exposure is nice, but I hate that the region is spread out so far. Unfortunately college athletics are more and more about money.
LindenCy - couldn't agree more with you. Additionally, I'd bet the "elephant in the room" at every Big XII revenue meeting is the unspoken fear that Texas, OU, A&M, and perhaps Nebraska might look elsewhere if the money was more spread out. The rest of the schools walk a fine line.Quote:
Originally Posted by LindenCy
Tornado man, you've got some splainin' to do to Parkersburg.....
J/K...yes I am that bored.
"The Bears scheduled a football game at Connecticut this season and agreed to move it to a Friday night for ESPN2. That will earn Baylor a check for $300,000."
Folks; how much does Iowa State clear for each home football game? Is $300 K worth it to go on the road + ESPN?
All the other BCS conferences share revenue equally. For example in the Big Ten, Ohio State, Michigan, and Penn State are responsible for the majority of the TV ratings and national interest, but everyone -- including Northwestern, Indiana, Minnesota, and Iowa -- gets an equal cut of that revenue. We also have very weak bowl tie-ins for the middle of the pack teams when compared to the SEC and Big Ten.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tornado man
We are not lucky to be in the Big XII the way it's currently structured...and if Pollard and the other AD's in the North share that attitude, we will continue to be a doormat for Texas.
But it takes 9 votes out of 12 to change anything.
Texas, Oklahoma, Nebraska and Texas A&M -- that's already 4 against. Who among them is going to switch sides?
We're "lucky" in the sense that if not for the Big XII, we would have no other BCS options.Quote:
Originally Posted by MontyBurns
When the Big XII was formed, there had to be an incentive for Texas and Texas A&M to join the league. It wasn't a slam-dunk. Texas was wanted by the Pac-10, A&M by the Southeastern. The revenue plan was created that let them keep more of the TV money. But tell me, where would we be without our share of the Big XII football bowl revenue and college basketball TV appearance money? In the MAC or Mountain West, that's where.
I know that the Big Ten and the ACC share all revenues equally - I am not so sure about the Pac-10 and the SEC.
Yes, please can we end the "Why going to the Big 10 would benefit Iowa State" talk???Quote:
Originally Posted by troyrew
If the Big 10 were to request a new team, there would be several on their want list. Iowa State would NOT make the list.
Notre Dame could have walked in to the conference awhile back, but they chose not to. I'm sure ISU was their second choice though...
I think what really hurt the lower end of the Big XII was some of the past TV contracts we had in place. I may not be 100% accurate but didn't our ABC contract prohibit any other Big XII TV games in the same time slot. That really limited the number of teams on TV and obviously the marquee programs will get the first available slots. We may have gotten a lot more TV exposure in the 2000-2004 time period had there been more slots available. 2-3 Extra TV games would help more than changing the distribution scheme IMHO.
If it needs nine votes to pass, it will never pass. We have six schools earning more under the current agreement than they would under equal sharing. Those six have no interest in changing things.