Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 41
  1. #1
    Publisher
    Points: 772,035, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 67.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation First ClassVeteranCreated Album pictures50000 Experience Points
    ChrisMWilliams's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Des Moines
    Posts
    15,796
    Points
    772,035
    Level
    100
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 499
    Given: 131

    Tulsa World article on future Big 12 finances

    This is as good of a write up as I have seen since last week's announcement on future revenue sharing within the conference. Highly recommended.

    Big 12's new revenue-sharing plan levels playing field, raises incentives | Tulsa World



  2. #2
    Pro
    Points: 45,145, Level: 65
    Level completed: 69%, Points required for next Level: 405
    Overall activity: 1.0%
    Achievements:
    Veteran25000 Experience Points
    Rods79's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Des Moines
    Posts
    2,492
    Points
    45,145
    Level
    65
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 4
    Given: 1

    Re: Tulsa World article on future Big 12 finances

    So, according to that article, we are not sharing Tier 1 money anywhere near 76%. Does that change when those are up for negotiation? I site hope so, because if those dollars are going to grow exponentially past the Tier 2, we are getting the low end again.



  3. #3
    Walk On
    Points: 10,776, Level: 31
    Level completed: 33%, Points required for next Level: 474
    Overall activity: 0%
    Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Mt. Ayr
    Posts
    133
    Points
    10,776
    Level
    31
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 0
    Given: 1

    Re: Tulsa World article on future Big 12 finances

    No you read that all wrong. All the Tier 2 money goes into a giant pool then 50% of all Tier 1 enters that pool also, leaving only 50% of Tier 1 to be distributed amongst the people for whom are on Tier 1.
    That amount added up in other words is 76% (I know its really like 75 but I'm sure there is a decimal in there somewhere) of all the money combined being shared evenly while the other 24% gets distributed to the teams who are on Tier 1.



  4. #4
    Addict
    Points: 92,694, Level: 94
    Level completed: 76%, Points required for next Level: 456
    Overall activity: 14.0%
    Achievements:
    Veteran50000 Experience Points
    Frak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Dow City, IA
    Posts
    5,559
    Points
    92,694
    Level
    94
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 82
    Given: 27

    Re: Tulsa World article on future Big 12 finances

    Quote Originally Posted by Jarrods79 View Post
    So, according to that article, we are not sharing Tier 1 money anywhere near 76%. Does that change when those are up for negotiation? I site hope so, because if those dollars are going to grow exponentially past the Tier 2, we are getting the low end again.
    Yeah. So next year, those schools playing in Tier 1 games get 50% of that money plus an equal share of the Tier 2? If that's the truth, then the little guys like ISU get screwed this for the next four years and then REALLY get screwed when the Tier 1 contract is renegotiated. You're talking 3x at least what the Tier 1 rights are now...so teams would get a huge paycheck for playing those games PLUS an equal share of Tier 2? Seems to me that the gap between the top and bottom should widen here, not shrink.

    CW, maybe it's time to ask around about this. Pollard or Malchow would know.


    Last edited by Frak; 06-10-2011 at 11:52 AM.

  5. #5
    Walk On
    Points: 10,776, Level: 31
    Level completed: 33%, Points required for next Level: 474
    Overall activity: 0%
    Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Mt. Ayr
    Posts
    133
    Points
    10,776
    Level
    31
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 0
    Given: 1

    Re: Tulsa World article on future Big 12 finances

    "Teams used to get more money for playing games selected by network television (ABC) than they did for playing on cable (ESPN or FSN). Now, though, all the money from cable TV appearances (Tier 2, the Big 12 calls it) goes into a pool for equal distribution, while 50 percent of the money from network TV (Tier 1) is distributed evenly. The other 50 percent from network appearances is kept by the team playing the game."

    Read more from this Tulsa World article at Big 12's new revenue-sharing plan levels playing field, raises incentives | Tulsa World

    Seriously read that paragraph and tell me we are getting screwed. Last year we played on FCS how many times and didn't play on tv how many. We never got paid for any of those. Now no matter who is on Tier 2 we get paid and we also get 50% of all Tier 1. Come on people, have a little faith in Pollard. We won't be getting screwed in this deal.



  6. #6
    Rookie
    Points: 18,316, Level: 41
    Level completed: 30%, Points required for next Level: 634
    Overall activity: 0%
    Achievements:
    10000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Sammy11's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    DFW
    Posts
    406
    Points
    18,316
    Level
    41
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 0
    Given: 0

    Re: Tulsa World article on future Big 12 finances

    Good find



  7. #7
    Starter
    Points: 15,018, Level: 37
    Level completed: 21%, Points required for next Level: 632
    Overall activity: 1.0%
    Achievements:
    10000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Cyrok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    DSM
    Posts
    629
    Points
    15,018
    Level
    37
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 4
    Given: 28

    Re: Tulsa World article on future Big 12 finances

    Quote Originally Posted by Klone View Post
    "Teams used to get more money for playing games selected by network television (ABC) than they did for playing on cable (ESPN or FSN). Now, though, all the money from cable TV appearances (Tier 2, the Big 12 calls it) goes into a pool for equal distribution, while 50 percent of the money from network TV (Tier 1) is distributed evenly. The other 50 percent from network appearances is kept by the team playing the game."

    Read more from this Tulsa World article at Big 12's new revenue-sharing plan levels playing field, raises incentives | Tulsa World

    Seriously read that paragraph and tell me we are getting screwed. Last year we played on FCS how many times and didn't play on tv how many. We never got paid for any of those. Now no matter who is on Tier 2 we get paid and we also get 50% of all Tier 1. Come on people, have a little faith in Pollard. We won't be getting screwed in this deal.

    I want to be very careful to not go into 'the sky is falling' mode, but it looks to me like we got screwed. The high-revenue schools are getting a bigger chunk of money from the tier 2 games they are not playing in while maintaining the unbalanced sharing of the tier 1 games they are in.

    ISU might be getting more money in the near future than what we have received recently, and I am very grateful for that, but there are 2 things that are very concerning to me: First, it looks like we have been set up to get sucker-punched when the Tier 1 deal is renegotiated in 4 years, and Second, the conference has been blowing sunshine on a deal that is bad for us.

    I'm hoping that I've misunderstood this and that someone smarter than me can paint an over-all view of the finances from 2009 to 2016.


    Last edited by Cyrok; 06-10-2011 at 01:21 PM.

  8. #8
    Speechless
    Points: 467,717, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 12.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialVeteran50000 Experience Points
    jdoggivjc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Sterling Heights, MI
    Posts
    31,620
    Points
    467,717
    Level
    100
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 466
    Given: 321

    Re: Tulsa World article on future Big 12 finances

    Quote Originally Posted by Klone View Post
    "Teams used to get more money for playing games selected by network television (ABC) than they did for playing on cable (ESPN or FSN). Now, though, all the money from cable TV appearances (Tier 2, the Big 12 calls it) goes into a pool for equal distribution, while 50 percent of the money from network TV (Tier 1) is distributed evenly. The other 50 percent from network appearances is kept by the team playing the game."

    Read more from this Tulsa World article at Big 12's new revenue-sharing plan levels playing field, raises incentives | Tulsa World

    Seriously read that paragraph and tell me we are getting screwed. Last year we played on FCS how many times and didn't play on tv how many. We never got paid for any of those. Now no matter who is on Tier 2 we get paid and we also get 50% of all Tier 1. Come on people, have a little faith in Pollard. We won't be getting screwed in this deal.
    Yeah, I don't see how ISU is getting screwed in this, either. In 2009 ISU made ~$7.5 million in TV revenue. With this new second tier deal ISU is going to make at least twice as much as that, if not more, and even more than that when first tier gets renegotiated.

    If getting paid = getting screwed, then find me some lube...


    Chuck Lidell: I paint my toenails with pink and black polish. Problem is, I get more paint on my toes and on the carpet than on my nails. Any advice?
    Maria Sharapova: Don't you beat up other guys for a living? I don't know how to answer this.



  9. #9
    All-Star
    Points: 72,726, Level: 83
    Level completed: 76%, Points required for next Level: 424
    Overall activity: 3.0%
    Achievements:
    Veteran50000 Experience Points
    brokenloginagain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    1,999
    Points
    72,726
    Level
    83
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 38
    Given: 0

    Re: Tulsa World article on future Big 12 finances

    isu's finances in the b12 keep getting better and better....and yet people keep finding something to complain about.

    we were faced with giving up a car last year to potentially end up with a tricycle. now we find out we're getting a bmw, and people are pi$$ed its not a bentley.



  10. #10
    All-Star
    Points: 42,554, Level: 63
    Level completed: 70%, Points required for next Level: 396
    Overall activity: 1.0%
    Achievements:
    Veteran25000 Experience Points
    JY07's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,154
    Points
    42,554
    Level
    63
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 16
    Given: 16

    Re: Tulsa World article on future Big 12 finances

    Everything in the article seems fair to me; I don't see how any of you can think we're getting screwed



  11. #11
    Speechless
    Points: 269,321, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 5.0%
    Achievements:
    Veteran50000 Experience Points
    isuno1fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Clive, Iowa
    Posts
    17,447
    Points
    269,321
    Level
    100
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 95
    Given: 19

    Re: Tulsa World article on future Big 12 finances

    I see no problem either. VERY happy with the new conference and the way things are falling in place.



  12. #12
    Speechless
    Points: 404,747, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 3.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialVeteran50000 Experience Points
    alarson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    West Des Moines, IA
    Posts
    21,069
    Points
    404,747
    Level
    100
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 252
    Given: 107

    Re: Tulsa World article on future Big 12 finances

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyrok View Post
    I want to be very careful to not go into "the sky is falling" mode, but it looks to me like we got screwed. The high-revenue schools are getting a bigger chunk of money from the tier 2 games while maintaining the unbalanced sharing of the tier 1 games they are in.

    ISU might be getting more money in the near future than what we have received recently, and I am very grateful for that, but there are 2 things that are very concerning to me: First, it looks like we have been set up to get sucker-punched when the Tier 1 deal is renegotiated in 4 years, and Second, the conference has been blowing sunshine on a deal that is bad for us.

    I'm hoping that I've misunderstood this and that someone smarter than me can paint an over-all view of the finances from 2009 to 2016.
    I may be wrong, but i believe with the new contract our chances of being in tier 2 instead of tier 3 (FCS) are much higher.

    It absolutely looks like the low end of the conference gets screwed with this, as those playing in tier 1 more often will get an unequal share of that revenue, plus an equal share of tier 2 (thus a lesser share than deserved for those actually playing the tier 2 games)

    Its not accurate to just compare to what we were making last year. You have to look at going forward. When this has been trumpeted as 'being more fair to the low end, and removing some of the revenue sharing disparity', and it actually appears to do the opposite (bringing more of a share of overall revenue to those at the top), its absolutely fair to criticize it.



  13. #13
    Pro
    Points: 67,813, Level: 80
    Level completed: 86%, Points required for next Level: 237
    Overall activity: 0%
    Achievements:
    Veteran50000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Des Moines
    Posts
    3,237
    Points
    67,813
    Level
    80
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 49
    Given: 1

    Re: Tulsa World article on future Big 12 finances

    Quote Originally Posted by Frak View Post
    Yeah. So next year, those schools playing in Tier 1 games get 50% of that money plus an equal share of the Tier 2? If that's the truth, then the little guys like ISU get screwed this for the next four years and then REALLY get screwed when the Tier 1 contract is renegotiated. You're talking 3x at least what the Tier 1 rights are now...so teams would get a huge paycheck for playing those games PLUS an equal share of Tier 2? Seems to me that the gap between the top and bottom should widen here, not shrink.

    CW, maybe it's time to ask around about this. Pollard or Malchow would know.
    From what I understand is that currently the B12 splits 50% of the revenue equally among the members. Under the new contract they will split 76% of the revenue equally. I went to Iowa state so my math maybe suspect but isn't 76% more than 50%?

    Doesn't this mean ISU gets more money than before? Even if the revenue was split 100% with schools like OU and UT are still going to make an obscene amount more money that ISU.

    Even though it may seem like UT gets to double dip with their tier 3 rights they are so far ahead of the rest of the schools it doesn't matter.

    Ideally 76% isn't as good as 100% but it is better than 50%.



  14. #14
    Starter
    Points: 15,018, Level: 37
    Level completed: 21%, Points required for next Level: 632
    Overall activity: 1.0%
    Achievements:
    10000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Cyrok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    DSM
    Posts
    629
    Points
    15,018
    Level
    37
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 4
    Given: 28

    Re: Tulsa World article on future Big 12 finances

    Quote Originally Posted by bosco View Post
    From what I understand is that currently the B12 splits 50% of the revenue equally among the members. Under the new contract they will split 76% of the revenue equally. I went to Iowa state so my math maybe suspect but isn't 76% more than 50%?

    Doesn't this mean ISU gets more money than before? Even if the revenue was split 100% with schools like OU and UT are still going to make an obscene amount more money that ISU.

    Even though it may seem like UT gets to double dip with their tier 3 rights they are so far ahead of the rest of the schools it doesn't matter.

    Ideally 76% isn't as good as 100% but it is better than 50%.

    The concern here is that the conference is moving from 50% to 76% on tier 2 (where ISU plays - so we have to share more of the money we would be getting) and the conference is not moving from 50% to 76% in the tier 1 games (where ISU rarely plays.) So it's possible that ISU would have made more money (percentage-wise of what was available) under the old agreement. This is especially annoying when the deal has been portrayed in the media as being more balanced.


    Quote Originally Posted by bosco View Post
    I went to Iowa state so my math maybe suspect but isn't 76% more than 50%?
    Really?



  15. #15
    Addict
    Points: 92,694, Level: 94
    Level completed: 76%, Points required for next Level: 456
    Overall activity: 14.0%
    Achievements:
    Veteran50000 Experience Points
    Frak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Dow City, IA
    Posts
    5,559
    Points
    92,694
    Level
    94
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 82
    Given: 27

    Re: Tulsa World article on future Big 12 finances

    Quote Originally Posted by bosco View Post
    From what I understand is that currently the B12 splits 50% of the revenue equally among the members. Under the new contract they will split 76% of the revenue equally. I went to Iowa state so my math maybe suspect but isn't 76% more than 50%?

    Doesn't this mean ISU gets more money than before? Even if the revenue was split 100% with schools like OU and UT are still going to make an obscene amount more money that ISU.

    Even though it may seem like UT gets to double dip with their tier 3 rights they are so far ahead of the rest of the schools it doesn't matter.

    Ideally 76% isn't as good as 100% but it is better than 50%.
    I'm not saying that ISU isn't going to be making more money...they ARE. What I'm saying is that all the talk about evening up the revenue split and helping out the lower revenue schools like KSU, ISU, Baylor may be BS (unless I understand it wrong). Here's a scenerio:

    Texas is on Tier 1 six times during the season, Tier 2 five times and the Bevo Network once. It used to be that everyone got a 50% share of all TV money and then paid per appearance. So UT would have gotten 6 "Tier 1" shares and 5 "Tier 2" shares. Now, they're going to get Tier 2 money every week no matter if they're on that Tier or not plus keep their extra Tier 1 money.

    What Deace says about "Don't pee on me and tell me it's raining"...that seems to apply to all the talk about the conference being more equal. Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems to me that UT/OU saw that Tier 2 was going to be worth more and decided they wanted that equal sharing while keeping Tier 1 the same as it was.



Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
  • Football
  • Iowa State vs. North Dakota State
  • August 30, 2014
  • 11:00 AM