Is ISU safe? Could the Big 12 still implode?

**tazclone** · 07-29-2010, 08:34 AM

Originally Posted by CyBobby

I have been saying that the big 12 conf would not last five years but, after seeing and hearing about the media days down in Dallas TX, I have come to the conclusion that this conference may not last three years!!

When you have one school Texas of course siphoning all the money off the top all the rest of the league will always be looking for greener pastures elsewhere and no one should blame them imho....

If you want to know why the u of texas will never move to another conference its really quite simple.... NO OTHER CONFERENCE WILL LET THE 'HORNS GET THE BULK OF THE MONEY AND THE SCHEDULE OF THEIR CHOICE!!!

You need to look at other conference's revenue. In every conference, the top dog brings in much more revenue than the others. We are talking TV revenue/bowl revenue here and that is it. The difference between the top earner and the bottom earner in the Big 12 last year was around $3 million. Now let's say we split that $3 million up 11 ways. People are complaining about $272,272? Seriously,not that big a deal. If Texas goes to the Big 10 or SEC, they will still bring in more revenue than their conference brethren. tOSU does, Florida does, etc, etc.

**tazclone** · 07-29-2010, 08:36 AM

Originally Posted by DrDrunkenstein

What exactly does this mean? Texas throwing its hat in with the Big12-2 is pretty much what saved the conference. Nebraska & Colorado leaving is what almost sank the conference. The only instability now is coming from Texas A&M. Based on the actions of the member institutions, who in the Big 12-2 has been better to ISU than Texas?

And aTm is playing the SEC card when they have nothing.

**jumbopackage** · 07-29-2010, 08:42 AM

Is it just me, or does A&M have the WORST case of short man syndrome of any school in the country?

All I can see when I hear them whining is how much they hate being in the shadow of Texas. It's kind of amusing. I wish they would just accept their place as Texas' *****.

**CPRsavedMYlife** · 07-29-2010, 08:48 AM

Reading this article was not a great way to start my day.

**DrDrunkenstein** · 07-29-2010, 08:58 AM

CyBobby, it has been a long time since I have seen a post that was as wrong as yours.

When you have one school Texas of course siphoning all the money off the top

The last season for which the official numbers have been released, 2008, OU made the most in TV revenue, not Texas. Also, the rules for TV revenue sharing, which rewards national TV appearances, was agreed to by every Big 12 member. Why blame Texas and OU for what ISU agreed to?

If you want to know why the u of texas will never move to another conference its really quite simple.... NO OTHER CONFERENCE WILL LET THE 'HORNS GET THE BULK OF THE MONEY AND THE SCHEDULE OF THEIR CHOICE!!!

Last season, every Big 10 school made double in TV revenue of what Texas made. That is correct, Indiana made twice as much in TV football revenue as Texas. Texas wants $, not control. Texas would leave for the Big 10 in a heartbeat BUT the politicians in the State of Texas will not allow Texas, A&M and Tech to be split up, which is why A&M wanted to go to the SEC but couldn't.

**UNIGuy4Cy** · 07-29-2010, 09:09 AM

I think I would throw up if Texas A&M made 15 million and ISU had to pay them to keep this promised 20 mill, still trying to figure out how the Big 12 benefits ISU?

**jbhtexas** · 07-29-2010, 09:12 AM

Originally Posted by jumbopackage

Is it just me, or does A&M have the WORST case of short man syndrome of any school in the country?

It's not just you, and I think it is getting worse over the years, I moved down here 16 years ago, and it wasn't like it is now. Although, probably because UT was struggling back then. UT regained prominence, and A&M did't keep up.

**Frak** · 07-29-2010, 09:12 AM

Originally Posted by DrDrunkenstein

CyBobby, it has been a long time since I have seen a post that was as wrong as yours.

The last season for which the official numbers have been released, 2008, OU made the most in TV revenue, not Texas. Also, the rules for TV revenue sharing, which rewards national TV appearances, was agreed to by every Big 12 member. Why blame Texas and OU for what ISU agreed to?

Last season, every Big 10 school made double in TV revenue of what Texas made. That is correct, Indiana made twice as much in TV football revenue as Texas. Texas wants $, not control. Texas would leave for the Big 10 in a heartbeat BUT the politicians in the State of Texas will not allow Texas, A&M and Tech to be split up, which is why A&M wanted to go to the SEC but couldn't.
[/SIZE]

Indiana probably did have twice the TV FB revenue as UT did last year...but, what people fail to realize is that TV revenue is just a minor part of an athletic budget. And UT has the largest athletic budget in the country. I'd guess at least double Indiana's overall budget.

That said, if I were Pollard, I'd be getting that contingency plan ready soon. I want to see a nice, stable situation. If it is the Big 12 with two new teams, OK. If it is the Big East with KU, MU, KSU, that's great...even with half the TV revenue. If ATM keeps holding this SEC stuff over everyone's heads, this whole thing isn't going to last more than three years.

**DrDrunkenstein** · 07-29-2010, 09:28 AM

Indiana probably did have twice the TV FB revenue as UT did last year...but, what people fail to realize is that TV revenue is just a minor part of an athletic budget. And UT has the largest athletic budget in the country.

$20 million bucks a year isn't minor. ADs value TV revenue so highly because it is contractually fixed. Texas is making a fortune in merchandising and filling up its big stadium right now but when the time comes and Texas goes in the tank for a few seasons (and it happens to everyone eventually), the merchandising and stadium revenue will take a hit but the TV revenue will be the same.

still trying to figure out how the Big 12 benefits ISU?

If the Big 12 tanks, and this is just my guess-timation, it is a 50/50 shot that ISU lands in another BCS conference vs being demoted to a non-BCS conference. If it comes up on the losing end of that coinflip, ISU would beg for the chance to give a few million to A&M so that it can make 3 times the TV Revenue it can make in a non-BCS conference.

**jbhtexas** · 07-29-2010, 09:38 AM

Originally Posted by JonDMiller

It bought ISU time, and hopefully it brought them closer with MU, KU, KSU, etc, to realize that they are in the same boat. If those schools stick together

This could be used as an example for the phrase pipe dream in the next version of the dictionary...

**iowa_wildcat** · 07-29-2010, 10:24 AM

KSU has no intention of becoming a member of the Big East. That conference is as unstable as the Big 12 and even more diverse. How many of the members do not even play D-1 football. Can you imagine a 20-24 member conference for basketball? Look for KSU to appear in the Mountain West if push comes to shove.

**DrDrunkenstein** · 07-29-2010, 10:27 AM

Originally Posted by iowa_wildcat

KSU has no intention of becoming a member of the Big East. That conference is as unstable as the Big 12 and even more diverse. How many of the members do not even play D-1 football. Can you imagine a 20-24 member conference for basketball? Look for KSU to appear in the Mountain West if push comes to shove.

That may be your personal preference, but there is ZERO chance that any university would turn down an offer from a conference with an automatic BCS bid for a conference without one. Basketball is irrelevant to the discussion of conference realignment.

**JUKEBOX** · 07-29-2010, 10:31 AM

Originally Posted by iowa_wildcat

KSU has no intention of becoming a member of the Big East. That conference is as unstable as the Big 12 and even more diverse. How many of the members do not even play D-1 football. Can you imagine a 20-24 member conference for basketball? Look for KSU to appear in the Mountain West if push comes to shove.

I could see ISU, Mizzou, Kansas, K-State, and Baylor (or any other teams) making a new D1 conference if the Big 12 fell apart again.

**tazclone** · 07-29-2010, 10:39 AM

Originally Posted by DrDrunkenstein

$20 million bucks a year isn't minor. ADs value TV revenue so highly because it is contractually fixed. Texas is making a fortune in merchandising and filling up its big stadium right now but when the time comes and Texas goes in the tank for a few seasons (and it happens to everyone eventually), the merchandising and stadium revenue will take a hit but the TV revenue will be the same.

If the Big 12 tanks, and this is just my guess-timation, it is a 50/50 shot that ISU lands in another BCS conference vs being demoted to a non-BCS conference. If it comes up on the losing end of that coinflip, ISU would beg for the chance to give a few million to A&M so that it can make 3 times the TV Revenue it can make in a non-BCS conference.

It isn't $20 million per year that people are whining about. They are whining about revenue sharing of the TV money and last year if all revenue wass shared equally it would have amounted to approx. $272,272 for ISU.

Going forward we will play every team in the Big 12 which means we will most likely have more games on TV because we will play all the top teams as well as the lowly teams. Plus we play Iowa which will always be televised. TV revenue will be even closer. Now tke worse case where Texas gets $20 and lowly Baylor/ISU get $14 million. That is a $6 million dollar difference. If you take that $6million and divide it 10 ways it means an extra $600k for each school. That isn't that much in the big picture.

**tazclone** · 07-29-2010, 10:40 AM

Originally Posted by UNIGuy4Cy

I think I would throw up if Texas A&M made 15 million and ISU had to pay them to keep this promised 20 mill, still trying to figure out how the Big 12 benefits ISU?

Yes, it would be stupid for ISU to pay $1 million in order to receive $6-10 million.

How can you not see that?