1 min read
Texas: They do make Whine in Texas
So my apologies to all of my fellow Cornhuskers fans. I was wrong. It was Texas. It’s always Texas. And how do I know for sure? I grew up there. I know the way it works.
Well, this certainly changes things. The Big 12 lives to fight another day. Or at least until the Longhorns get a better offer. Never underestimate the power of a Texan or two to broker a deal behind closed doors. That’s pretty much what happened with a lot of wheeling and dealing to get it done. I wouldn’t be surprised if old LBJ himself had something to do with it.
So I’ll set the record straight. Though many will look at Colorado and Nebraska as the rats who ran early, it’s now very clear. It was Texas setting them up as scapegoats. And set them up they did.
Follow Me
Spot on Drew. Too bad this is a family site and you couldn’t show where the kisses are really taking place. Good for Colorado and Nebraska for getting while the getting was good.
Good Morning from Omaha,
NOW you get the picture. TX gets 20-25 m. and their own television network and additional 3-5 m.from that they don’t have to share and the 7 dwarves minus Oklahoma and A&M all get between 17-19 m. thats better than the 12-13 they were getting but once again TX plays the I am texas card.When Beebe saw this coming last week, where was the money then? what promises did he have to make to Fox?
It won’t be too long before the flirtations begin again. Mizzou wants out, big time.
If they can’t all share equally then what will be the point.
Its not going to be pretty this coming season. The players, while they don’t get involved in the politics of the league will be whipped into a frenzy to “beat” Nebraska’s a$$. Better strap it on tight, its gong to be a bumpy ride.
Strive for excellence, nothing but your best.
Gene
As a CU Alum and now a Texas resident, the whole situation makes me sick. The NCAA as a group pisses me off.
CU has been a joke for years, they are complete clown these days. Not just football, the whole campus admin is a complete joke. They have ruined the University. I just want to explode on the poor student volunteers who continually call me to donate, but I don’t because it’s not their fault. It makes me want to donate to CSU just on principal.
Drew, you should repost your old cartoon honor Sal Aunese. That was a memorable time, sad though it was, back when I loved CU and was honored to be CU Student.
I didn’t get it then, and I don’t get it now. Where does this leave Colorado and Nebraska? Why did everyone want to leave in the first place? Who’s really running college football anyway?
All I know is this – the Pac-10 comes out the winner in this, despite the commissioner’s desire to expand.
It shows who had the power in the Big XII it was not anyone in the North but Texas!!!! I honestly think CU and Nebraska won this one! They went places that wanted them!!!! The Big Ten gets its championship game which will give them more money. The Pac 12, got to think Utah or someone is going to go to Pac 10, will get its money from a championship game. So CU and Nebraska get some of the money!!! No more championship game in Big XII so let Texas think it is king for a little while longer!
Scott,
Sounds to me like you got what you deserve. Living in hell (Texas).
Yes, Texas runs the Big 12. It will soon become clear to CU fans that USC runs the Pac 10. The unfortunate thing for CU is that they will still fall victim to an uneven revenue distribution system in their new conference, and politically they will be seen for years as “the new kid on the block” (not to mention that they will have little hope to be competitive in any revenue sport in the near future – but then that was the case in the Big 12 as well).
It won’t take long for the Pac 10 to discover that CU truthfully (sorry) brings little in the way of tv ratings in relation to the size of the population base.
I really don’t see how the Pac 10/12 came out a winner in this. They didn’t get the one entity they were truly after – Texas. The monster tv contract they were hoping for won’t be there now. Sure, the new one will be bigger than the old one, but it won’t be superior to all other conferences as was hoped, especially now that the big dog (USC) is facing NCAA sanctions. They all had better hope that talks about a Big 12/Pac 10 tv alliance can be resurrected.
One other note – I chuckle a bit every time that I see someone assume that this is some huge financial concession to Texas. They have an athletic budget of about $130 million. Iowa State, K-State, etc are somewhere around $40 million (give or take). The “have nots” in the Big 12 are expected to roughly double their tv money intake from around $8 million to $16 mill. Texas is expected to go from around $12 million to about $20-23 mill. So, Texas is getting a couple mill extra – big deal! Drop in the bucket. Doubling tv revenue for the smaller budget schools is a MUCH MUCH bigger deal to them than doubling (roughly) the tv money is for Texas.
The one thing they were really after – and will get – is the ability to market their own network – something that will have little to no negative impact on the other schools. So, Texas makes a few bucks marketing some game replays, their volleyball and baseball games, a coaches show or two, and any regular bb and fb games that aren’t on the regular network. ISU doesn’t care. KSU and KU don’t care. Mizzou doesn’t care. Doesn’t hurt them. If anything, it gets their name seen more often in the prime Texas recruiting grounds.
It’s not as much of a butt-kissing as everyone wants to think.
@Mike – It is a power play, plain and simple. And for that reason, I am glad that CU got out. Ok, sure USC is the TU of the Pac-10. Guess what, they lost Bowl bids and scholarships which changes things a bit. Also, CU more than doubled its revenue and expanded its recruiting visability. This was the best move for CU.
The Pac-10 wants Colorado? Not anymore. Send the Buffs back to the Big 12.
Living in Kansas and being a fan of the locals this whole thing just makes me sick. I know that KU and KSU needed a BCS conference, but this is just a house of cards. Texas wants the payoff (extortion) money and then they will be gone. Texas is ND with a conference of pawns. Wow, I just can’t imagine what this is going to do to competitive balance.
Corey – I agree it was the best move for CU. It’s basically a West Coast school that’s not on the West Coast. They never really fit in the Big 12 – or the old Big 8 for that matter (in my opinion).
My point is simply that those who remained in the Big 12 are not getting screwed over like everyone wants to believe. The same revenue distribution formula and same bylaws will be in place. The reason the revenue “gap” is increasing is because the numbers are bigger. Twelve percent of $200 million is a bigger number than Twelve percent of $130 million.
The only major concession by the “little 7” was the ability for UT (or any other school) to develop their own network, but that’s not going to have a negative impact on the other schools.
It was a big win for the “little 7” – particularly those who were rumored to be homeless if the bigger schools bolted.
Brian – how is it going to upset the competitive balance? Newsflash – UT had over $150 million in total revenue last year (tickets, tv, other sources). They have a budget of $130 million compared to schools at the small end around $40 million. They put $20 million in the bank last year!! Do you really believe that an extra $5 million or so going towards Texas is going to allow them (and OU/A&M) to put better players on the field or create some other kind of competitive advantage? They can still only have the same 85 scholarships in fb and the same numbers as everyone else in all the other sports too. That extra tv revenue is a drop in the bucket for them.
Here is the bottom line — UT got about $3 million more in Big 12 revenue than the lowest share in the conference. Repeat – the difference between top and bottom out of $130 million distributed was approximately $3 million. Big frickin’ whoop!
They wanted and got two things – tv money on par with the Big 10 and SEC schools and the ability to set up their own network. The tv revenue formula is based on appearances made (and the network they are made on) in football and men’s basketball, as well as NCAA tourney income. Those figures are based on five-year averages. And guess what – it’s been documented that the formulas will stay the same.
If you want your school to get more tv money, hope they get on tv more and/or go farther in the NCAA tournament.
In case you are wondering, I’m from KS as well, and I’m NOT a fan of one of the “big 3.”
Brian – one more note – where would Texas possibly go? They will be making more money in a couple of years than anyone else in college sports. They will have their own tv network that no other conference is willing to let them have. They have the bulk of the political power in the conference that they wouldn’t be able to have in other conferences. Where will they go?
As I said, they wanted reassurances that they will get fair money and their own network. They have what they want.
This was a “win” for all 12 teams. CU and NU got to go to conferences that are probably better fits with their needs, and the remaining 10 get reassurances of a new contract that, when executed, will be on par with other major conferences. The tv revenue for the schools on the lower end will roughly double.
This isn’t a bad deal, and it’s not a house of cards.
@ Mike W: The PAC 10 shares TV revenue equally, and will continue to after a new PAC 12 TV contract is worked out. Texas wasn’t going to agree to that. USC doesn’t have the kind of power in the PAC 10 that Texas does and will continue to have in the Big 12/10. Texas just made the playing field in the conference more uneven with this deal. Maybe the TV money won’t affect them as much as it will the smaller schools, but over a 10 year period with the new agreement Texas could be collecting as much as $100 million more in TV revenue than other schools in the conference. This excludes A&M and Okie who get more in the deal.
CU and Nebraska were smart to make the move to other conferences where TV revenue is shared equally, and there isn’t a Texas type school that bullies other member schools to get what they.
If it’s equal in the pac 10, then I was misinformed by a couple of newspaper accounts. If that’s the case, CU got a steal – they won’t contribute anywhere near what they’ll receive in tv money. Good for them.
The playing field was lopsided to begin with – see my earlier post regarding budgets. The few extra million doesn’t mean much in their overall scheme of things. They still have the same number of scholarships to fund as everyone else. They already have the best in facilities – what does the extra tv money mean for them? Gold plated chairbacks in the stadium? Point is, there’s a point of diminishing return on the extra revenue.
The doubling of tv revenue for everyone else means a helluva lot more to that group than UT’s does to them.
All won.
Mike, it sounds to me like we agree on this for the most part. I’m just not gonna be very complimentary to Texas on this issue right now.
The PAC 10 works like the Big 10 does in TV money as far as I know. The PAC wants to start it’s own tv network like the Big 10 did and share TV revenues equally. This was the driving factor in expansion. Get to at least 12 teams, start a PAC TV network, hold a conference championship game, etc. Gotta believe they’ll negotiate a new TV deal based on the Big 10 model which is paying Big 10 schools like $20 million a year apiece. Not saying a new PAC tv deal will pay out that much, but it should be comparable. All this and we don’t have to deal with Texas.
Colin – well, we’re not complimentary of UT either – but we realize that we have the business opportunity to make OUR living off of THEIR massive market value. If we have to take a little smaller piece of the pie to do so, so be it. The projected $16-17 million is better than the $4 to 6 million in revenue that would have been likely in the MWC after an expansion, and a far cry from the $8 million that we get now.
Good luck to the Buffs.
Awesome comments!
Let me preface this with a disclaimer – I’m not trying to start an argument, nor am I wanting to just say “I’m right.” I am just wanting to see if this is not accurate – I’m in a debate about the Pac 10 with a Longhorn fan in another forum and Colin had me questioning myself on the revenue sharing piece. Thanks in advance!
This is from the Seattle Times at http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/sports/2009256167_uwmoney24.html —
******************
The Pac-10 has what commissioner Tom Hansen refers to as “hybrid” revenue sharing. The conference shares postseason revenue for football bowl games and the NCAA men’s basketball tournament.
However, football TV revenue — one of the biggest moneymakers for schools each year — is not shared. Instead, the participating team or teams keep the lion’s share of the money, essentially splitting 59.5 percent. The other 40 percent is shared evenly among the other teams. For non-conference games, the participating team keeps its entire share of the money.
That results in some wide disparity in incomes each year.
In 2008, for instance, USC took home $6,469,584 in revenue from TV games that were part of the regular Pac-10 package (the totals do not include money for local TV games, which pay out far less). At the bottom of the scale, Washington State took home $3,029,526.
But success on the field doesn’t solely determine TV income. Washington, despite an 0-12 season, was fourth at $4,740,518, a testament in part to its rabid following and large media market. Oregon, despite finishing second and winning 10 games, was seventh at $3,967,724, in part due to being in a smaller market.
The total TV revenue for the conference was $43,250,000, meaning if the money was split evenly, each school would get $4,325,000. For smaller-market schools, that extra million or so every year would make a huge difference.
Wow, Mike W. This must have hit the nail on the head for you to get so worked up. Do you have anything better to do with your life than to continually respond to random message boards? Dude, get a life.
Drew N. – thanks for your concern about the quality of my life. Rest assured, it’s just fine. I’m a teacher and off for the summer, so I spent a little time yesterday afternoon getting caught up on some sports news and viewpoints. Hope that’s ok.
My visit here is not random at all – I check out Mr. Litton’s fantastic work regularly, and I have one Big 12 message board I visit when I have 10 or 15 extra minutes. Finally, I’m not worked up – just giving another point of view with actual facts to back it up (call me crazy, but I like to have actual facts before I go expressing an opinion – hence my last post asking for further info).
Would you like tomorrow’s agenda? I’ll be glad to share since you seem to care so much. Just let me know.
Enjoy your evening of making false assumptions about people you don’t know.
Mike W.
Texas will stay in the Big 12 – er, 10 – as long as it’s good for them (and them alone). They think it’s going to be only a few years before the PAC-12 and/or SEC come calling.
But they’re stuck. No self-respecting conference is going to let Austin turn them into thier own personal fiefdom the way the current setup does. As an O-State grad, I’m depressed that my school’s athletic program chipped in with the rest of the sheep. OU, OSU and Kansas would probably be better off in the Mountain West.
I’m jealous of Colorado and Nebraska; they saw what was going on and got out to places where they’ll be more respected.