NCAA Conference Realignment

[shnsajax]

Seems to me like Texas has no incentive to leave the Big 12. I imagine the Big 12 will just add TCU, Utah, or maybe even Boise St.

 

I don't really see Texas's incentive to stay.

 

The Big 12 doesn't have a revenue sharing program most conferences have. And Texas is sort of a cash cow in their athletic department. If Texas is looking to make a move I think academics is going to play a very large part of it.

[SouthSideRyan]

Seems to me like Texas has no incentive to leave the Big 12. I imagine the Big 12 will just add TCU, Utah, or maybe even Boise St.

 

I don't really see Texas's incentive to stay.

 

The Big 12 doesn't have a revenue sharing program most conferences have. And Texas is sort of a cash cow in their athletic department. If Texas is looking to make a move I think academics is going to play a very large part of it.

 

As I said earlier, the worst team in the Big Ten makes more than Texas.

[OleMissCub]

Interesting. Never knew about the particulars of the financial stuff.

[SouthSideRyan]

The Big 12's TV contract is just awful. Their TV deal is up within a year or 2 I believe, but as was outlined on http://frankthetank.wordpress.com/, a blog that's been incredible on the expansion issue(I swear I said Texas and ND on here before I read it on there) there really aren't a lot of place where the Big 12 can get their money from. ABC/ESPN is locked into spots with the Big Ten and SEC. CBS has the SEC. NBC has Notre Dame, FOX has baseball, and just gave up the BCS. There's just not a big buyer out there. (Link below, #

 

http://frankthetank.wordpress.com/2010/02/17/template-for-shooting-down-any-argument-against-texas-going-to-the-big-ten/

[snoodmonger]

Someone explain to me this chart. I keep hearing every big 10 team earns more than Texas, but SI has Texas as the top revenue producing AD in college sports. Also, someone reassure me that KU, as #26 on that list, would be an attractive addition to some conference and not end up in the MAC.

 

SI Chart: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/andy_staples/02/16/conference-realignment/1.html#ixzz0fwsp9NDK (scroll down to bottom of article)

[Ding Dong Johnson]

I keep hearing every big 10 team earns more than Texas

I think that claim is a bit of a stretch. I find it extremely difficult to believe that Northwestern makes half of what Texas makes even with the BTN and revenue sharing money included.

[Butterscup1679666578]

Someone explain to me this chart. I keep hearing every big 10 team earns more than Texas, but SI has Texas as the top revenue producing AD in college sports. Also, someone reassure me that KU, as #26 on that list, would be an attractive addition to some conference and not end up in the MAC.

 

SI Chart: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/andy_staples/02/16/conference-realignment/1.html#ixzz0fwsp9NDK (scroll down to bottom of article)

 

Well it's like people have said, Kansas is definitely attractive to every major conference out there, but K-State is the opposite of that.

 

And just for fun:

[Guest]

I'm glad that video still exists. I couldn't find it when I looked a while back.

 

My guess is that the difference you're seeing in the numbers is between money from the conference and total revenue(ticket sales and the like).

[shnsajax]

Someone explain to me this chart. I keep hearing every big 10 team earns more than Texas, but SI has Texas as the top revenue producing AD in college sports. Also, someone reassure me that KU, as #26 on that list, would be an attractive addition to some conference and not end up in the MAC.

 

SI Chart: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/andy_staples/02/16/conference-realignment/1.html#ixzz0fwsp9NDK (scroll down to bottom of article)

 

My understanding is that is just from tv revenue.

[snoodmonger]

I'm glad that video still exists. I couldn't find it when I looked a while back.

 

My guess is that the difference you're seeing in the numbers is between money from the conference and total revenue(ticket sales and the like).

 

 

I love how Sproles is shorter than the pylon.

[MSG T]

I keep hearing every big 10 team earns more than Texas

I think that claim is a bit of a stretch. I find it extremely difficult to believe that Northwestern makes half of what Texas makes even with the BTN and revenue sharing money included.

 

That's because it's not true, at least according to this:

 

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/sports_college/2009/07/how-much-revenue-did-your-favorite-fbs-school-take-in-in-200708-this-chart-will-tell-you.html

 

Now, that is from 2007-2008, and it has probably changed some, but I can't imagine it has changed enough to make up for....

 

Northwestern (last in B10) - $41,835,733 in revenues

Texas (#1 in nation) - $120,288,370

 

For those that can't read, the link shows that in 07-08 school year, Texas was #1 in the nation in revenues and 6 Big Ten schools in the Top 20 (#2 OSU, #4 Mich, #5 Wisky, #6 PSU, #15 Iowa and #16 MSU).

[MSG T]

Someone explain to me this chart. I keep hearing every big 10 team earns more than Texas, but SI has Texas as the top revenue producing AD in college sports. Also, someone reassure me that KU, as #26 on that list, would be an attractive addition to some conference and not end up in the MAC.

 

SI Chart: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/andy_staples/02/16/conference-realignment/1.html#ixzz0fwsp9NDK (scroll down to bottom of article)

 

My understanding is that is just from tv revenue.

 

That's a more recent list than I posted. It's all revenue into athletic depts, not just TV. His is from 08-09, mine was 07-08.

 

As was said earlier, Texas is a cash cow.

[Jon]

Total revenue is a very different thing than conference revenue sharing, most of which comes from TV deals. Texas wouldn't be replacing all of their revenue sources. They'd be swapping the small percentage they get from television and replacing it with more money from Big Ten revenue sharing.

 

The bottom line is that Texas would make more money in the Big Ten. And it would have a very significant impact on academics.

[Guest]

Total revenue is a very different thing than conference revenue sharing, most of which comes from TV deals. Texas wouldn't be replacing all of their revenue sources. They'd be swapping the small percentage they get from television and replacing it with more money from Big Ten revenue sharing.

 

The bottom line is that Texas would make more money in the Big Ten. And it would have a very significant impact on academics.

 

 

They would make more money, but they'd also lose their stranglehold on the direction of their conference. Is that worth a 7% increase in revenues? May not be to a place like Texas. My personal feeling(maybe too hopeful on my part), is that Texas won't move unless they are forced to, which is a catch-22 for those B10 fans who want them as part of an expansion.

[MSG T]

Total revenue is a very different thing than conference revenue sharing, most of which comes from TV deals. Texas wouldn't be replacing all of their revenue sources. They'd be swapping the small percentage they get from television and replacing it with more money from Big Ten revenue sharing.

 

The bottom line is that Texas would make more money in the Big Ten. And it would have a very significant impact on academics.

 

This much is very true. They'd stand to make quite a bit more money.

 

Also, I can't find it, but I saw an article that showed the research agreement within B10 schools amounted to way more $ to each school than even OSU's athletic revenue stream. I want to say it was in the neighborhood of $300 mil... per school.

 

Texas would stand to gain additional revenue from that stream also.

[jersey cubs fan]

Total revenue is a very different thing than conference revenue sharing, most of which comes from TV deals. Texas wouldn't be replacing all of their revenue sources. They'd be swapping the small percentage they get from television and replacing it with more money from Big Ten revenue sharing.

 

The bottom line is that Texas would make more money in the Big Ten. And it would have a very significant impact on academics.

 

 

They would make more money, but they'd also lose their stranglehold on the direction of their conference. Is that worth a 7% increase in revenues? May not be to a place like Texas. My personal feeling(maybe too hopeful on my part), is that Texas won't move unless they are forced to, which is a catch-22 for those B10 fans who want them as part of an expansion.

 

If their conference starts getting picked apart, don't they lose a strangehold over the direction of that conference?

[MSG T]

Total revenue is a very different thing than conference revenue sharing, most of which comes from TV deals. Texas wouldn't be replacing all of their revenue sources. They'd be swapping the small percentage they get from television and replacing it with more money from Big Ten revenue sharing.

 

The bottom line is that Texas would make more money in the Big Ten. And it would have a very significant impact on academics.

 

This much is very true. They'd stand to make quite a bit more money.

 

Also, I can't find it, but I saw an article that showed the research agreement within B10 schools amounted to way more $ to each school than even OSU's athletic revenue stream. I want to say it was in the neighborhood of $300 mil... per school.

 

Texas would stand to gain additional revenue from that stream also.

[Jon]

Total revenue is a very different thing than conference revenue sharing, most of which comes from TV deals. Texas wouldn't be replacing all of their revenue sources. They'd be swapping the small percentage they get from television and replacing it with more money from Big Ten revenue sharing.

 

The bottom line is that Texas would make more money in the Big Ten. And it would have a very significant impact on academics.

 

This much is very true. They'd stand to make quite a bit more money.

 

Also, I can't find it, but I saw an article that showed the research agreement within B10 schools amounted to way more $ to each school than even OSU's athletic revenue stream. I want to say it was in the neighborhood of $300 mil... per school.

 

Texas would stand to gain additional revenue from that stream also.

I don't recall seeing that article, but I'd have to believe the administration at Texas would love to join the CIC (Big Ten plus University of Chicago). Notre Dame didn't want to join them, but I can't imagine the faculty at Texas would be anything other than giddy at the opportunity.

 

This could be their best chance to improve their academic and research status for a long time.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

Maybe they want a stranglehold on the new Big XIII.

[Guest]

Total revenue is a very different thing than conference revenue sharing, most of which comes from TV deals. Texas wouldn't be replacing all of their revenue sources. They'd be swapping the small percentage they get from television and replacing it with more money from Big Ten revenue sharing.

 

The bottom line is that Texas would make more money in the Big Ten. And it would have a very significant impact on academics.

 

 

They would make more money, but they'd also lose their stranglehold on the direction of their conference. Is that worth a 7% increase in revenues? May not be to a place like Texas. My personal feeling(maybe too hopeful on my part), is that Texas won't move unless they are forced to, which is a catch-22 for those B10 fans who want them as part of an expansion.

 

If their conference starts getting picked apart, don't they lose a strangehold over the direction of that conference?

 

 

Well, no, but it wouldn't behoove them to stay in that case either. If the Big 10 goes east/ND with it's expansion and doesn't touch Mizzou/Nebraska/KU, then nothing changes for Texas. If they take Mizzou and Nebraska, then Texas looks to the Pac 10. Because the Big 10 is the first domino in all these theories, if you think that Texas doesn't want to leave the Big 12, then in order to get them to the Big 10 you need to bring them and other Big 12 schools(aTm, Mizzou/KU/Nebraska). Obviously that's just one assumption of what UT would be thinking, if they're out for any loose bit of cash(or they get a ton of money on the research side like was just mentioned), then those scenarios don't carry much weight.

[jersey cubs fan]

Well, no, but it wouldn't behoove them to stay in that case either.

 

Well, yes they would, as teams in their conference would be leaving, thus indicating they aren't controlling the direction of the conference.

[Guest]

Well, no, but it wouldn't behoove them to stay in that case either.

 

Well, yes they would, as teams in their conference would be leaving, thus indicating they aren't controlling the direction of the conference.

 

That's not really what I meant by controlling the direction of the conference. Either way, the point of what I was saying holds true. If teams leave the B12, they'd look to leave too.

[snoodmonger]

Well, no, but it wouldn't behoove them to stay in that case either.

 

Well, yes they would, as teams in their conference would be leaving, thus indicating they aren't controlling the direction of the conference.

 

Just because those teams would leave doesn't mean UT wouldn't control the directing of the conference that remained. Of course they would. It just wouldn't be much of a conference worth controlling.

[jersey cubs fan]

Well, no, but it wouldn't behoove them to stay in that case either.

 

Well, yes they would, as teams in their conference would be leaving, thus indicating they aren't controlling the direction of the conference.

 

Just because those teams would leave doesn't mean UT wouldn't control the directing of the conference that remained. Of course they would. It just wouldn't be much of a conference worth controlling.

 

But if the conference no longer exists in it's current form it's not being controlled by Texas, unless Texas is pushing those schools to leave.

[snoodmonger]

That's a pretty strange definition of "controlling the conference" that you're working from. Nobody has ever suggested that Texas has total control of every institution within the Big 12. We're suggesting that Texas essentially calls the shots about how, financially, things work in the Big 12. The imbalance it creates certainly might drive schools like Neb and MU to look for better options elsewhere, but if you want to play in the Big 12, you play by UT's rules.

 

If MU and NU leave, that will continue to be the case. Because as long as UT is willing to stay, the other teams will likely want to hitch their wagons to UT, thus continuing to give them ultimate control of the conference. But UT might decide that a restructured Big 12 isn't worth keeping afloat. So it will leave. And with UT's departure, the Big 12 would become no more. Because the success of the Big 12 ultimately hinges on them. They're the only single team the Big 12 can't survive without.