ISU is not forfeiting any "exit money" from NU/CU

[GoShow97]

From todays presser JP states that ISU will let the lawyers address this issue and will decide as a conference what to do when the time comes.

Here is a link to the presser.

Geoffroy and Pollard Address the Media - Iowa State University Athletics Official Web Site - www.CYCLONES.com - The home of Iowa State Cyclone Sports

 

[Jack & Hilton]

I heard that too. Do any of the remaining 10 have law schools? Does either CU or kNU have a law school? Just curious whose side lawyers will be on

 

[CysRage]

I heard that too. Do any of the remaining 10 have law schools? Does either CU or kNU have a law school? Just curious whose side lawyers will be on

Why, do you really think Nebraska and Colorado will fight so they don't have to pay as much if any at all?

 

[kilgore_trout]

Please. Their uncomfortable body language was a big tell.

 

[jrcisu79]

Please. Their uncomfortable body language was a big tell.

Thank you

 

[Clone83]

I posted my first impression before. I can better understand the rationale now.

But, obviously, on its face, you don't have to be a lawyer to have a certain reaction, that the ones most likely leaving should receive the exit fees of those who actually did.

 

[agcy68]

I also heard the formula for dispersing TV money won't change.

 

[Balls]

I could only get the video to play to the point Pollard thanked the AD's. Is that all there is? Or more?

 

[alaskaguy]

Big 12 Assistant Commissioner Bob Burda responded that the 10 schools will share “all withdrawal fees withheld from Colorado and Nebraska,” calling the earlier talks about uneven distribution of the penalty a “good-faith offer.”

Link:
Promise of bigger TV dollars drove Big 12 survival - Yahoo! Sports

 

[Clonehomer]

So what exactly was Pollard talking about with the earmarked money? If we are keeping the "buyout" money, then is he talking about the TV revenue from CU and NU after 2011? If that's true, doesn't that go against the TV revenue distribution formula that they said would be the same as before?

 

[CyLoboClone]

baylor has a big conservative law school.

 

[cyclonenum1]

I heard that too. Do any of the remaining 10 have law schools? Does either CU or kNU have a law school? Just curious whose side lawyers will be on

Memo to you...a lawyer is on the side of whoever is paying him/her.

 

[TedKumsher]

The way I understood it:

Penalty/buyout/whatever you want to call it money owed to the Big 12 from Nebraska and Colorado: How much this money is and whether or not it's collected is entirely up to lawyers to decide. Any such money (which the Big 12 is NOT guaranteed to even get at this point) is not part of any negotiations amongst the remaining member schools.

Intersting side note -- I think Colorada will get 1/11 of Nebraska's penalty if it's true that Colorado is leaving in 2 years where Nebraska is leaving next year. Then the remaining 10 schools will get 1/10 of Colorado's (much smaller) penalty. All subject to litigation, I'm sure.

So what's this "earmarked" money? I understand it as a "minimum guarantee". The current TV contracts will not be changed because there are 10 teams instead of 12. As a result, there will be 1/6 of the TV money (Colorado's and Nebraska's 1/12 share each) that will now be available for the remaining 10 teams. The 5 teams have said that their share of that additional revenue will be available to the conference as a bargaining chip for the conference to give to the 3 teams -- if necessary -- possibly to compete with other conference's offers.

So in theory, the 5 teams could end up giving up absolutely nothing -- if TV revenue goes up enough that the 3 teams don't need "more". Also in theory, our TV revenue should not go down from what it currently is -- so the worst case scenario (if I understand correctly) is that we continue to get just as much TV money as we get now.

The expectation is that all schools will get more money than they are getting now -- but it will possibly be even more skewed in favor of the 3 schools (Texas, A&M, Oklahoma).

But as Jamie said (paraphrasing) -- if we have to get Texas a $9 million increase from $14 million to $23 million so that ISU can get a $5 million increase from $9 million to $14 million -- that's an easy decision. You can't look at it as money we're losing, but money we're keeping/gaining -- especially compared to the alternative (non-BCS conference).

 

[TedKumsher]

So what exactly was Pollard talking about with the earmarked money? If we are keeping the "buyout" money, then is he talking about the TV revenue from CU and NU after 2011? If that's true, doesn't that go against the TV revenue distribution formula that they said would be the same as before?

The uneven distribution based on actual TV appearances will not be changed -- but amended with the earmarked/leveraged theoretical "extra" money that is the 5 school's share of what would have been Colorado's and Nebraska's share.

Perhaps I'll try some easy example scenarios:

NOW:
total TV revenue: $120 million Obviously an average of $10 million/school.
actual distribution:
Texas $14 million
Oklahoma $13 million
Texas Tech $12 million
Nebraska $12 million
Missouri $10 million
Texas A&M $10 million
Oklahoma State $10 million
Kansas $9 million
Kansas State $8 million
Colorado $8 million
Baylor $7 million
ISU $7 million


IN 2 YEARS:
we'll say total TV revenue stays the same at $120 million. Let's further say that TV appearances remain pretty much the same, which means the distributions will remain the same. That means there's and extra $20 million to distribute because Nebraska and Colorado are gone. A "straight" split of that would give $2 million to each remaining school. The 5 schools' portion is $10 million, which *could* be given to the 3 schools -- $3.333 million each, added to their $2 million already means they could get $5.333 million more just because Nebraska and Colorado are gone.

Now I believe the expectation is that the $120 million total revenue will increase -- and perhaps significantly.


PS -- sorry -- that's a lot of math.

 

[Rogue52]

The way I understood it:

Penalty/buyout/whatever you want to call it money owed to the Big 12 from Nebraska and Colorado: How much this money is and whether or not it's collected is entirely up to lawyers to decide. Any such money (which the Big 12 is NOT guaranteed to even get at this point) is not part of any negotiations amongst the remaining member schools.

Intersting side note -- I think Colorada will get 1/11 of Nebraska's penalty if it's true that Colorado is leaving in 2 years where Nebraska is leaving next year. Then the remaining 10 schools will get 1/10 of Colorado's (much smaller) penalty. All subject to litigation, I'm sure.

So what's this "earmarked" money? I understand it as a "minimum guarantee". The current TV contracts will not be changed because there are 10 teams instead of 12. As a result, there will be 1/6 of the TV money (Colorado's and Nebraska's 1/12 share each) that will now be available for the remaining 10 teams. The 5 teams have said that their share of that additional revenue will be available to the conference as a bargaining chip for the conference to give to the 3 teams -- if necessary -- possibly to compete with other conference's offers.

So in theory, the 5 teams could end up giving up absolutely nothing -- if TV revenue goes up enough that the 3 teams don't need "more". Also in theory, our TV revenue should not go down from what it currently is -- so the worst case scenario (if I understand correctly) is that we continue to get just as much TV money as we get now.

The expectation is that all schools will get more money than they are getting now -- but it will possibly be even more skewed in favor of the 3 schools (Texas, A&M, Oklahoma).

But as Jamie said (paraphrasing) -- if we have to get Texas a $9 million increase from $14 million to $23 million so that ISU can get a $5 million increase from $9 million to $14 million -- that's an easy decision. You can't look at it as money we're losing, but money we're keeping/gaining -- especially compared to the alternative (non-BCS conference).

Your analysis is spot on.