Why revenue sharing is a joke

[tazclone]

We constantly see how the big televenelve is more secure, better financially, and more equal because of their"equal revnue sharing . I don't buy that at all. Take a look at the discrepancy in revenue of big televenelve schools.

These are 2009 numbers according to this graph http://www.mndaily.com/sites/default...1Athletics.jpg
NW-$48.6 million
Indiana- $55.1 million
Illinois- $55.6
Purdue- $59.8
Minny- $70.3U
MSU- $73.3
iowa-$79.5
Wisc-$89.5?
Mich- $95.2
PSU-$95.9
tOSU $119+

Now I haven't looked up the Big 12 but I know tOSU is bigger than Texas and I know ISU was in that 43-46 million range. In short the difference between the haves and have nots is just as big in the big televenelve as it is in the Big 12.

Also in 2009, there was only a $3 million difference between Texas and ISU in TV revenue. I know it has been close int he past but the difference is not that big in the scheme of things.

[IcSyU]

It's not equal revenue sharing. It's splitting tv contract money and bowl money between everyone. Schools still keep their ticket sales, hence why no one will ever touch Ohio State in that conference.

[Tornado man]

It's not equal revenue sharing. It's splitting tv contract money and bowl money between everyone. Schools still keep their ticket sales, hence why no one will ever touch Ohio State in that conference.

No they don't, they keep just 65%. All Big Ten schools give the other 35% of their home gate receipts to the Big Ten, with a minimum of $300,000 per game and a maximum of $1 million per game. The Big Ten then distributes this pot equally among all teams at the end of the year.
Therefore, Penn State, Michigan, and Ohio State are further supporting Northwestern, Indiana, and Purdue.

[Yes13]

No they don't, they keep just 65%. All Big Ten schools give the other 35% of their home gate receipts to the Big Ten, with a minimum of $300,000 per game and a maximum of $1 million per game. The Big Ten then distributes this pot equally among all teams at the end of the year.
Therefore, Penn State, Michigan, and Ohio State are further supporting Northwestern, Indiana, and Purdue.

Communism

The Big 10 is unamerican



if needed

[VeloClone]

Communism

The Big 10 is unamerican



if needed

Jimlad not needed. It's true and another reason to hate the Big Satan!

[Wesley]

Yep, Iowa will never be Ohio State.

[IcSyU]

No they don't, they keep just 65%. All Big Ten schools give the other 35% of their home gate receipts to the Big Ten, with a minimum of $300,000 per game and a maximum of $1 million per game. The Big Ten then distributes this pot equally among all teams at the end of the year.
Therefore, Penn State, Michigan, and Ohio State are further supporting Northwestern, Indiana, and Purdue.

I stand corrected.

However, revenue sharing is RARELY total revenue sharing. MLB has revenue sharing too...but do the Royals generate as much as the Yankees/Red Sox/etc.? Not even close.

[Tornado man]

I stand corrected.

However, revenue sharing is RARELY total revenue sharing. MLB has revenue sharing too...but do the Royals generate as much as the Yankees/Red Sox/etc.? Not even close.

I agree with that. There are way too many built-in advantages that OSU, Penn State, and Michigan have.

[tazclone]

I agree with that. There are way too many built-in advantages that OSU, Penn State, and Michigan have.

Which is my point.

Is NW better off against tOSU than we are against Texas?

When is the last time NW or Indiana beat tOSU in anything? How about ISU vs Texas?

In the end, revenue sharing is overrated and is a way for fans to whine and cry about how bad they have it. It has little to no bearing on parity in conferences. Tradition location, and winning have far more impact.

[Boxerdaddy]

Which is my point.

Is NW better off against tOSU than we are against Texas?

When is the last time NW or Indiana beat tOSU in anything? How about ISU vs Texas?

In the end, revenue sharing is overrated and is a way for fans to whine and cry about how bad they have it. It has little to no bearing on parity in conferences. Tradition location, and winning have far more impact.

This. QFT

[cyatheart]

We constantly see how the big televenelve is more secure, better financially, and more equal because of their"equal revnue sharing . I don't buy that at all. Take a look at the discrepancy in revenue of big televenelve schools.

These are 2009 numbers according to this graph http://www.mndaily.com/sites/default...1Athletics.jpg
NW-$48.6 million
Indiana- $55.1 million
Illinois- $55.6
Purdue- $59.8
Minny- $70.3U
MSU- $73.3
iowa-$79.5
Wisc-$89.5?
Mich- $95.2
PSU-$95.9
tOSU $119+

Now I haven't looked up the Big 12 but I know tOSU is bigger than Texas and I know ISU was in that 43-46 million range. In short the difference between the haves and have nots is just as big in the big televenelve as it is in the Big 12.

Also in 2009, there was only a $3 million difference between Texas and ISU in TV revenue. I know it has been close int he past but the difference is not that big in the scheme of things.

My problem is that NW is generating the same amount of revenue we are and Minnesota is generating 70 to our 40. Why is NW generating the same level of revenues when we outdraw them dramatically in both football and basketball? Why is Minnesota generating 70 when their football stadium is the same size. Because of the B10 Network. We need to be generating more than schools like NW, it's a small school with pityful fan support and a tiny fanbase and yet they still generate as much money as we do. At the end of the day we are competeing with the B10 schools as well.

[synapticwave]

We constantly see how the big televenelve is more secure, better financially, and more equal because of their"equal revnue sharing . I don't buy that at all. Take a look at the discrepancy in revenue of big televenelve schools.

These are 2009 numbers according to this graph http://www.mndaily.com/sites/default...1Athletics.jpg
NW-$48.6 million
Indiana- $55.1 million
Illinois- $55.6
Purdue- $59.8
Minny- $70.3U
MSU- $73.3
iowa-$79.5
Wisc-$89.5?
Mich- $95.2
PSU-$95.9
tOSU $119+

Now I haven't looked up the Big 12 but I know tOSU is bigger than Texas and I know ISU was in that 43-46 million range. In short the difference between the haves and have nots is just as big in the big televenelve as it is in the Big 12.

Also in 2009, there was only a $3 million difference between Texas and ISU in TV revenue. I know it has been close int he past but the difference is not that big in the scheme of things.

Maybe you don't know as much as you think you do. Texas was the top grossing school in 2009 with $138M.

[tazclone]

My problem is that NW is generating the same amount of revenue we are and Minnesota is generating 70 to our 40. Why is NW generating the same level of revenues when we outdraw them dramatically in both football and basketball? Why is Minnesota generating 70 when their football stadium is the same size. Because of the B10 Network. We need to be generating more than schools like NW, it's a small school with pityful fan support and a tiny fanbase and yet they still generate as much money as we do. At the end of the day we are competeing with the B10 schools as well.

Donations also equal revenue and that is a big chunk.

Yes, NW benefits from the Big 10 channel but you need to take a look at our TV revenue. We only made $3 million less than Texas in 2009. I am not sure what 2010 was but considering we were on TV quite a bit we should be up there. Not pocket change but not a crazy amount either. Fact is that the Big 12 shares 50% of the TV money. The rest gets paid out by appearance. In the past, ISU has done well in this scenario as the iowa game usually boosts our TV revenue.

In the end, if the Big 12 completely shared TV revenue, it would only boost us $1-2 million per year. That is why I stated revenue sharing is overrated. The Big 10 is more secure because of the revenue the Network produces not because of equal revenue sharing. BTW- The Big 10 Network is mostly third tier rights. Let's see what the other 8 get for their third tier before stating how great the big televenelve has it.

[tazclone]

Maybe you don't know as much as you think you do. Texas was the top grossing school in 2009 with $138M.

Are you sure because the article I got that graph from said tOSU was the top school. If so, I stand corrected. Doesn't change my opinion. The difference between the haves and have nots is significant whether their is 100% TV revenue sharing or 50%. The difference in TV revenue is minimal when you look at the figures. So Texas outdoes us by $90million+ and the difference in TV revenue was only $3million. That is very, very minor.

Revenue sharing is blown way out of proportion.

[jbhtexas]

Below are the latest numbers reported to EADA. The numbers for a few schools seem a little low, but that's what was reported to the Feds. UT blows away tOSU.

http://www.cyclonefanatic.com/forum/...ml#post2041593 (2009-2010 Grand total revenues for BCS schools)