Should ISU Subsidize Iowa Athletics?

[Allikat]

Give me a little latitude on this one and read the whole post before lynching me.

Suppose someone found a loophole in the Big 12 media agreement and figured out that Iowa State could get out before the next year.

Suppose the Big 10 came to Iowa State and said: "We'll let you in but you need to take a 1/2 share so that Iowa can get a bigger share."

The money would be better for Iowa State, but you would be making your rival that much better.

Would you do it?


The reason I ask is that is exactly what Washington State and Oregon State might be getting asked to do. Their option might be give their rival more money to stay in a watered down Pac 10/12 or be relegated to the Mountain West.

Oh, how the fates of Iowa State and Washington State have changed after the 2019 Alamo Bowl.

 

[nfrine]

You woke up too early....

 

[JP4CY]

In your scenario ISU would get a 1/2 share and the other half would go to Iowa, who would then be making 1.5x everyone else in the Big 10?

 

[ISUCubswin]

No, I am now loyal to Brett Yormark and the Big 12 for the rest of my life. **** money, all hail Brett Yormark!

 

[JM4CY]

Yes. Those contractors, Fran extensions and law suits need paid somehow.

 

[bsaltyman]

As much as I am looking forward to this new Big 12, yes of course I would jump at the chance to have ISU in the Big 10. Having easy to travel to conference road games would be great. I wouldn’t worry about the Hawks making more money at all.

 

[Tailg8er]

Not a chance. Now if it was a choice between that, or go to Conference USA or something, then of course.

 

[BWRhasnoAC]

Sounds like things are going well for the PAC.

 

[clonedude]

Iowa makes WAY more money than we do now.... and we compete basically on an even level with them. Sure they've won 5 out of 6, or 6 out of 7, whatever it is in football, but they've all been really close games that could go either way basically.

We've always gotten way more for the money than they have.

 

[clone52]

I'm assuming in this scenario, Iowa would get a full share of X and Iowa State would get half share at 0.5X. If Iowa State wasn't in the conference, Iowa would still get X, so I don't really see that as subsidizing Iowa.

 

[Allikat]

I'm assuming in this scenario, Iowa would get a full share of X and Iowa State would get half share at 0.5X. If Iowa State wasn't in the conference, Iowa would still get X, so I don't really see that as subsidizing Iowa.

Okay time for Algebra.

In my scenario the size of the pie increases but maybe Iowa and Nebraska get 1.25 x but Iowa State gets 0.5 x.

Reluctantly, I tend to lean with @bsaltyman and believe that so long as 0.5 x > 1.25 y then I would take 0.5 x. (Particularly if x guaranteed longer than y).

 

[Allikat]

Okay time for Algebra.

In my scenario the size of the pie increases but maybe Iowa and Nebraska get 1.25 x but Iowa State gets 0.5 x.

Reluctantly, I tend to lean with @bsaltyman and believe that so long as 0.5 x > 1.25 y then I would take 0.5 x. (Particularly if x guaranteed longer than y).

SOOOOO glad we are not Washington State or Oregon State this morning.

 

[Jer]

Taxpayers already subsidize their lawsuit settlements.

 

[JimmyChitwood]

Next question

 

[BryceC]

Sometimes you gotta take a breath before you hit that post button.

 

[clone52]

Okay time for Algebra.

In my scenario the size of the pie increases but maybe Iowa and Nebraska get 1.25 x but Iowa State gets 0.5 x.

Reluctantly, I tend to lean with @bsaltyman and believe that so long as 0.5 x > 1.25 y then I would take 0.5 x. (Particularly if x guaranteed longer than y).

That would change it a bit. The other option is that the Big 10 decides to expand, but TV won't do pro rata for Iowa State, thus the lower payout.

I would probably be a no on your option, but it really depends. If it means Iowa State goes from a $31M media deal to a $40M media deal, then probably not. If going from $31M to $55 million, that might change things.

If it was my idea, I'd be more open to it, but I'm interested to see what happens with the Big 12 conference. Right now I'd probably be a no because the Big 12 conference is looking good. If it was right after OUT left, I would definitely make the jump.

The other thing to note is there are diminishing returns on it. A $20M athletic budget increase at Iowa State goes a little further than a $20M athletic budget increase at Iowa and WAY further than a $20M increase at Texas.

 

[BoxsterCy]

CF needs a Harry Caray/Will Ferrell emoji.

 

[madguy30]

5 weeks to kickoff.

 

[Beernuts]

The model of conferences having equal revenue sharing is admirable and worked for decades. However, as we are seeing with NIL, we are now heading to an individual student and individual university market valuation.

For example, why would Ohio State want to continue to subsidize an Indiana or Iowa? Because they always have? If our athletes now can bid out their value on an annual basis through NIL...why shouldn't a university?

The NCAA leadership has messed this up IMO. They let the conferences leaders run the business of college athletics. In all honesty, at this point does the NCAA exist in the revenue producing sports?

 

[Allikat]

The other thing to note is there are diminishing returns on it. A $20M athletic budget increase at Iowa State goes a little further than a $20M athletic budget increase at Iowa and WAY further than a $20M increase at Texas.

This is a point that is not brought up enough.

Give Jamie Pollard a dollar and he will find a way to tuck it away and put it to good use after it becomes two dollars.

Give a Texas coach a dollar and it likely gets tucked somewhere else.