Why would you hate that? More money. Every game on TV. More money. Better bowl games. More money. No bias towards the better schools. More money. Etc. More money.
Big 10 to Push for Expansion - Interesting Development...
- Thread starter TheHelgo
- Start date
Why would you hate that? More money. Every game on TV. More money. Better bowl games. More money. No bias towards the better schools. More money. Etc. More money.
I've always thought the Big Ten should go to 14 and invite Texas, Texas A&M, and ND. That would be an absolute master stroke for Jim Delany. The divisions could look like this:
Great Plains
Texas
Texas A&M
Notre Dame
Iowa
Wisconsin
Minnesota
Illinois
Great Lakes
Penn State
Ohio State
Michigan
Michigan State
Indiana
Purdue
Northwestern
That would generate millions for the BTN in terms of new television sets (throughout the state of Texas and nationally for ND), and would get the Big Ten a foothold into Texas for recruiting. This would be a dream scenario, and even though it isn't likely to happen, Delany should at least consider it.
Great Plains
Texas
Texas A&M
Notre Dame
Iowa
Wisconsin
Minnesota
Illinois
Great Lakes
Penn State
Ohio State
Michigan
Michigan State
Indiana
Purdue
Northwestern
That would generate millions for the BTN in terms of new television sets (throughout the state of Texas and nationally for ND), and would get the Big Ten a foothold into Texas for recruiting. This would be a dream scenario, and even though it isn't likely to happen, Delany should at least consider it.
Uh, I kinda think every AD in the Big 12 "would mind." ISU depends on getting their share of Texas' revenue...
Big 10 Football Revenues
Orlando Sentinel - College Gridiron 365 Blog – Texas tops ‘em all in athletics revenues AND football revenues
Comparison of football revenues for top programs for same year. I would think that Texas actually would stand to lose money by having to share more equally with the other big 10 teams.,
I understand what your theory is. Now, go look at the 2009 Big Ten schedules, and report back how many Big Ten teams scheduled 4 non-conference cupcakes this year.
Scheduling four non-con cupcakes is not conducive to generating all that Big Ten TV money that everybody goes ga-ga over, not to mention the damage it to does to strength of conference and other such things that affect the BCS rankings. Do you really think the Big Ten would say something like "Welcome ISU! Here is an extra $10 million, now go set up your non-con schedule for the next ten years with the likes of NDSU, SDSU (as in South Dakota), La Tech, UAB, North Texas, Toledo, Florida International, Akron, etc."
Your theory, while reasonable on paper, would not be permitted to occur in reality. Thus, it doesn't seem like a reasonable argument in support of ISU moving to the Big Ten.
Thanks for the links. I still wonder about how each school adds up their numbers. You mean to tell me that Iowa spends $10 million more than both Penn State and Michigan on football? That's very hard to believe.
To start, I agree with you, but want to add this.
Just look at Iowa to see the point.
UNI
@ Iowa State
Arizona
Arkansas St
UNI was on the Big Ten Network, Iowa State on FSN, Arizona on ABC and Arkansas St on... BTN?... The point is Iowa may not have scheduled cupcakes but they still played one I-AA team and a Sun Belt team.
While the Big Ten would never let us schedule three Sun Belt teams and a I-AA opponent I highly doubt we would be required to play two BCS level teams in the non-conference every year.
No, they wouldn't.
Here are the numbers recently done by ESPN's Outside the Lines on Texas' revenue:
Revenue or money earned
Money from ticket sales: $44,691,119
Money athletics gets from student fees: $1,832,229
Money from playing in away games: $318,000
Contributions and donations to athletics: $35,057,421
Money or benefits from a third party including speaker fees, shoe contracts, country club memberships, etc: $0
Money the university uses to subsidize the athletic department: $0
Money from the NCAA and conferences: $11,346,333
Money from TV, radio and Internet rights: $191,690
Money from licensed products, advertisements and sponsorships: $16,639,171
Athletic department total operating revenue
Operating revenue: $120,288,370
Expenses or money spent
Money spent on student athletes' tuition and fees: $6,993,766
Money paid to visiting teams: $2,599,256
Salaries benefits and bonuses for coaches (paid by the university): $17,810,365
Salaries benefits and bonuses for coaches (paid by a third party): $0
Money spent on recruiting: $1,291,852
Team travel expenses: $6,991,985
Game day expenses: $16,230,167
Money spent on fund raising, marking, and promotion: $6,867,642
Medical and insurance expenses: $1,644,712
Athletic department total operating expenses
Operating expenses: $110,996,365
The only two things that would change on that list would be money from TV/internet rights and travel expenses. The Big Ten would gain a HUGE profit from the addition of Texas, and Texas would see the benefit of that. Instead of each team receiving $4 million, each team might receive $5-6 million. As I indicated above, they would make more from the revenue sharing agreement, but undoubtedly, their travel expenses would go up. So the question would be whether the profit they would turn would offset the travel costs. I think the BTN would BLOW UP as a result of this move, and thus, I think it would be a profitable endeavor.
The bigger reason that I think Texas would join would be for academics. Back in the early 90's, the main reason Texas wanted to join the Big 10 was because of the academic benefits/reputation of the conference, and that hasn't changed.
Here's a link about the conference realignment in 2005, in which 23 schools changed conference affiliation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_NCAA_football_realignment
Some things that I immediately thought of after reading that:
*The prospective 12th Big 10 school may have to pay an exit fee for their current conference affiliation, so which universities would be able to afford $5-10 million, with the current economic climate the way it is, to pay-out to their former conferece?
*The ACC is still having problems after adding BC, Miami, and V. Tech as their viewership and confernce prestige have taken a massive hit since '05 - could a team like BC be a fit for the Big 10?
*Would the addition of a team in the Big 10 cause the PAC-10 to try to gain 2 more schools to their conferece?
The more I think about all these things, the more I think Delaney is just making Alvarez and JoePa happy and the Big 10 is doing nothing more than blowing smoke...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_NCAA_football_realignment
Some things that I immediately thought of after reading that:
*The prospective 12th Big 10 school may have to pay an exit fee for their current conference affiliation, so which universities would be able to afford $5-10 million, with the current economic climate the way it is, to pay-out to their former conferece?
*The ACC is still having problems after adding BC, Miami, and V. Tech as their viewership and confernce prestige have taken a massive hit since '05 - could a team like BC be a fit for the Big 10?
*Would the addition of a team in the Big 10 cause the PAC-10 to try to gain 2 more schools to their conferece?
The more I think about all these things, the more I think Delaney is just making Alvarez and JoePa happy and the Big 10 is doing nothing more than blowing smoke...
For starters, when we get our 1/12 share of their BCS title game cash. Would you want Jamie to send it back?
ISU, and every other Big 12 school, gets 1/12 of the take home BCS revenue they earn this year.
However, that revenue is going to come in no matter what, since the Big 12 gets an automatic BCS bid every year. It becomes more lucrative when the Big 12 gets 2 BCS teams, which typically is always going to run through Texas.
Last edited:
Have you seen what lawyers charge? I can see it.:wink:
Athletic departments are supposed to be "non-profit". They don't pay back investors. The ROI is winning. If the Big Ten teams aren't winning more with all the additional revenue they get, what good is all the money doing them? Building nice facilities, I guess. Isn't the point of playing sports to win?
The 2009 Big 12 revenue distribution was $130 Million. Still not Big Ten levels...but better...
You're being an idealist, not a realist.
Money talks. Period.
If you don't think money is a factor, there is no further reason for me to continue this conversation. Just know that if you believe athletic departments strive to be "non-profit", you are completely wrong. A great example would be the eventual dream ISU fans have of Bowling in Jack Trice....Pollard knows that won't happen unless the athletic department starts making some coin.
And I assume you mean the 2008 distribution, the 2009 distribution numbers haven't been released yet. The Big 12 benefited greatly from the 2008 season because A.) it got two teams in the BCS and B.) the Big 12 also had 3 teams in the top 5 in 08, making their TV revenue sky rocket. I will guarantee the numbers for this past season will be lower than the 08 season.
EDIT: Oh, and it is a lot easier to win with the nice facilities. If you were a recruit would you rather walk into a crumby old weight room or walk into one with state of the art equipment? I know what answer I'd choose.
Last edited:
Pat Forde from ESPN sure thinks a lot about us, from his Twitter page:
"Likely suspects: Pitt, Missouri, Syracuse, Rutgers, Nebraska ... Iowa State has been mentioned but brings nothing to the table."
Pat Forde (espn4d) on Twitter
"Likely suspects: Pitt, Missouri, Syracuse, Rutgers, Nebraska ... Iowa State has been mentioned but brings nothing to the table."
Pat Forde (espn4d) on Twitter
It's true. And it's not necessarily a slam on ISU either. It's just because, as mentioned, the Big ten already has a majority of the Iowa market. I don't think Forde means that we suck and wouldn't be a valuable member in the sense of bringing competativeness, just money.
