ISU AD wants Big XII Revenue Sharing

[royalfan5]

http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_page=1200&u_sid=2392213

He raises some interesting points.

[XingTheRubicon]

ISU's Pollard seeks to spread the wealth
BY LEE BARFKNECHT
WORLD-HERALD STAFF WRITER



• Big 12 Conference

RELATED

• Big 12 Conference
COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. - Please don't skip to another story just because this one is about how the Big 12 shares its money.

This tale is livelier than you might expect - especially with Iowa State Athletic Director Jamie Pollard around to spice it up.

In his year and a half since arriving at ISU, Pollard has replaced the head coaches in the school's three main sports, sparked record-smashing donations and launched ticket-selling drives that set school records.

That's all part of what Iowa State calls "Taking the Next Big Step."

Now, Pollard wonders when the Big 12 will take its next big step.

At the conference's spring meetings last week, he tried to get his fellow A.D.s to think about what many consider the unthinkable: changing the way the Big 12 divides the money received from television.

"It's a subject you talk 'around,'" Pollard said. "But more and more, it's influencing a lot of other decisions."

Pollard came from Wisconsin of the Big Ten. That league shares all revenue equally among its members.

Where the money went
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Big 12 allocation (2005-06):
1, Texas: $9.68 million
2, Oklahoma: $9.09 million
3, Texas A&M: $8.23 million
4, Nebraska: $7.81 million
5, Colorado: $7.64 million
6, Iowa State: $7.34 million
7, Kansas: $7.28 million
8, Texas Tech: $6.79 million
9, Baylor: $6.63 million
10, Okla. State: $6.62 million
11, Missouri: $6.53 million
12, Kansas State: $6.47 million"That is a big reason that they have grown their brand as strong as they have," he said. The Big Ten, in financial clout and recognition, is considered the premier league in the country.

Like the Big Ten, the Big 12 shares all of its revenue from bowl games, the NCAA basketball tournament, conference championships and sponsor deals.

The one place the Big 12 differs is in television money, which was worth $50 million in 2005-06.

One half of the Big 12's TV money is divided equally. The other half is placed in an "appearance pool." Schools earn units of credit for every football TV appearance and for basketball nonconference TV games.

Sounds fair, right?

Maybe, until you check some figures.

Information obtained by The World-Herald through the Big 12's most recent Internal Revenue Service filings showed that, in 2005-06, Texas was allocated the most money ($9.68 million). Nebraska was fourth ($7.81 million). Kansas State received the least ($6.47 million).

That's a top-to-bottom gap of $3.21 million. That's 10 percent of the budget of some of the Big 12's financial "have-nots." That makes it even harder for those schools to even think about gaining much ground on the "haves."

"It comes down to the old management discussion," Pollard said. "You're only as good as your weakest link."

Skeptics at this point note that Iowa State has the smallest athletic budget in the Big 12 - $28.1 million. Nebraska's is more than twice that, and Texas' is three times the size.

So you conclude that Pollard, tired of being the weakest link, is only doing this to boost his school and take money from his richer brethren.

He'll passionately reply that a rising tide lifts all Big 12 boats, using this story.

In the early 1990s, the Big Ten went from having about 40 football games televised to more than 70. More money came in from having more games on, but the gain wasn't as great as before.

Still, no one complained because the revenue was shared and the overall exposure was nearly doubled.

"Michigan and Ohio State didn't say, 'Oh, we don't want any part of that,'" Pollard said. "They put a value, 14 years ago, on Wisconsin getting on TV against Northwestern. And I would argue, 'Look what happened in the Big Ten.'"

Now, nearly every Big Ten football game is televised and the league is starting its own network. Meanwhile, the Big 12 usually has no more than half of its football games broadcast each week.

"I don't think in the best interests of growing the brand of the Big 12," Pollard said, "that you can do it if everybody's not an equal partner."

The revenue-sharing discussion in the Big 12 will turn formal after the 2007-08 athletic season. That's when the league's new contract with ABC/ESPN - believed to be worth $480 million - goes into effect.

Big 12 Commissioner Kevin Weiberg confirmed that the sweeter deal will mean more money to distribute. A subcommittee of athletic directors will be appointed in six months to start work on how to parcel out that booty.

According to league bylaws, nine votes would be needed to change the Big 12's revenue-sharing plan.

Don't hold your breath on that happening. Most of the league's "haves" would rather undergo an NCAA investigation than volunteer to take less money.

Still, Nebraska's Harvey Perlman, chairman of the Big 12's board of directors, said the chief executive officers are more than willing to discuss how the conference operates as a whole.

"That raises the tension about what you do relative to more-successful programs vs. less-successful programs," he said. "Competitive equity is important, and it benefits all the schools in the Big 12.

"Those are issues that we have addressed in some circumstances, and no question we will address in an ongoing way."

For now, that recognition is about all that Pollard and others at the lower end of the Big 12 food chain can ask for.

cp

[colleyvillesooner]

Hey, stop sucking and you'll get some more money.

Sincerely,

Teams winning the Big 12 Title ;)

[DrZaius]

That is not a bad article. I would be in favor of just about anything that would raise the standard of athletics in the WHOLE conference. I am pretty tired of coming across articles that ranks the toughness of our conference lower than 3 to 4 other conferences.

[toast]

has the ISU ad checked to see if the Big10 is accepting any more teams? maybe they can join.

[Collier11]

I think there are some legitimate points in this article. We constantly gripe about TV exposure, about national perception, and the such. But maybe this would help all of that?

[OSUAggie]

Those #'s for TV appearances were for 1 season.

The #'s change (probably dramatically for teams not named OU, Texas or to a lesser extent Nebraska) every year.

The only problem I have with the TV appearance stipend is that teams that are **** get paid to get their *** kicked on TV by OU, UT or whomever while a matchup of 'good' or 'average' teams goes unnoticed that same week b/c our TV deal is such **** that only 3 games are on.

[MamaMia]

So, is he saying that he wants socialized football?

[Paperclip]

:texan: This conference would be bankrupt without us! :texan:

[101sooner]

I'm so sick of this equal playing field crap. Parity sucks. I never had a problem with dynasties to begin with. I liked it when everyone but OU and Nebraska had horrible facilities. Before these stupid scholarship limits, every time some pretender offered a scholly to a player that might make them better, OU gave them a scholly just to keep the other team down. That's what a program deserves when they have Billy Sims, Thomas Lott, Kenny King and 'Street in the same backfield.

I don't think we should share a dime with any of them.

[royalfan5]

If revenue sharing would create more revenue for everyone, and get the Big XII on TV as much as the Big 10/11, I don't see how it can hurt the conference.

[OSUAggie]

The Big XII won't be on TV as much as the Big 10 (or SEC, ACC, Pac 10) b/c of the population difference within each market, among other things. Whether or not Iowa State or Baylor or OSU or whoever gets an extra million/year is irrelevant.

[SOONER STEAKER]

I do believe that the funds should be divided up equally. $3M is a ton money for a program ike ISU or KSU who might not get the type of oil revenue that our alums give year in and year out. I just can't see some wheat farmer in Iowa donating $1M of his earnings so that ISU can recruit great prospects.

I would enjoy seeing more Big 12 teams on the tube IF it;s not on a pay per view basis. If that was the case, DON'T share the revenues with the bottm feeders.

[mxATVracer10]

The ag makes a good point....

[OSUAggie]

The idea that the "haves" are getting $3 million more than the "have nots" is a little misleading.

If the article's #'s are factual, the total amount of money that was shared between Big XII institutions was a little over $90 million (90.11). The article claims that all monies are shared other than the television money (which is based on appearances).

Thus, if you take away $50 million from the total monies shared (90.11 million), you're left with $40.11 million that was shared equally between the 12 universities. The $40.11 million equates to roughly 3.3 million (3.425) per school in "other" shared incomes (NCAA tournament, bowl games, whatever).

By subtracting the "other" income #'s from each school's "total" shared income #'s, you'll get the real amounts that television left for each school. They are as follows:

1. Texas (6.3375)
2. Oklahoma (5.7475)
3. Texas A&M (4.8875)
4. Nebraska (4.4675)
5. Colorado (4.2975)
6. Iowa State (3.9975)
7. Kansas (3.9375)
8. Texas Tech (3.4475)
9. Baylor (3.2875)
10. Oklahoma State (3.2775)
11. Missouri (3.1875)
12. Kansas State (3.1275)

These numbers seem fair based on television app's for each school during the 2005 football season and the '05-'06 basketball season. Again, the numbers change in a relatively dramatic fashion from year to year (we also only had 1 BCS app in 2005).

Now, if the $50 million TV contract was shared equally between member institutions, each school would have received roughly $7.5 million in shared income for the 2005-2006 school year. This gives the bottom feeder (K-State) an increase of roughly $1 million while it takes away more than $2 million from Texas because their football and basketball teams in 2005-2006 were simply more appealing to the rest of the world than the versions from Kansas State.

Complete revenue sharing is ****. I think the way the Big XII does it is perfectly fair. If the bottom programs want to be at the same level as the top programs, they need to pull themselves up by working hard and winning games, not by bitching for welfare and handouts.

[OSUAggie]

I should probably rephrase this:


The idea that the "haves" are getting $3 million more than the "have nots" is a little misleading.

to say something more along the lines of:

The idea that the "have nots" would gain a few million in revenue to equal that of the "haves" if television revenue was shared equally is a little misleading.

[Dio]

How much more money is the TV deal worth because OU, ut, and Neb are part of the conference? ISU already gets more than they give in this deal- if they don't like it, I'm sure the WAC or C-USA could use another team that hasn't won shat, ever.

[royalfan5]

I do believe that the funds should be divided up equally. $3M is a ton money for a program ike ISU or KSU who might not get the type of oil revenue that our alums give year in and year out. I just can't see some wheat farmer in Iowa donating $1M of his earnings so that ISU can recruit great prospects.

I would enjoy seeing more Big 12 teams on the tube IF it;s not on a pay per view basis. If that was the case, DON'T share the revenues with the bottm feeders.
They don't grow wheat in Iowa.

[royalfan5]

How much more money is the TV deal worth because OU, ut, and Neb are part of the conference? ISU already gets more than they give in this deal- if they don't like it, I'm sure the WAC or C-USA could use another team that hasn't won shat, ever.
ISU would also have to spend a lot less if they were in the WAC or C-USA. The Big XII could build up their regional television presence a lot more with the cooperation of all the Members. NU is looking at doing there own network for all Sports besides FB and BB, but a Big XII only network would make a lot more sense, and the only that happens is if you cut everyone in as equals.

[OSUAggie]

ISU would also have to spend a lot less if they were in the WAC or C-USA. The Big XII could build up their regional television presence a lot more with the cooperation of all the Members. NU is looking at doing there own network for all Sports besides FB and BB, but a Big XII only network would make a lot more sense, and the only that happens is if you cut everyone in as equals.

If TV revenue sharing was done equally in the 2005-2006 school year, Iowa State would have received approximately $160,000 more than they received with the current structure.

[toast]

but a Big XII only network would make a lot more sense, and the only that happens is if you cut everyone in as equals.

and you have an adequate league commissioner who knows what he's doing, which we don't.

[Paperclip]

I just need to know one thing. How does this benefit athletics at OU?

[Jello Biafra]

if he wants ISU to have a few more bucks to "compete" he needs to

A. move the school out of Iowa, for starters.
B. donate a good portion of his large salary back to the athletic department.
C. stop sucking at everything that doesn't involve corn.


other than that, there are actually people out there in this world who will spend 30 minutes of their life watching an OU (or texas or nebraska) game because of what they bring to the table. isu beats up on murray state one week then loses to northern iowa the next....

[royalfan5]

I just need to know one thing. How does this benefit athletics at OU?
More Money in total, and more potential exposure.

[TripleOption14]

The solution to this problem is simple for ISU. Start winning some friggin ball games and the money will follow PERIOD!!!!

[royalfan5]

The solution to this problem is simple for ISU. Start winning some friggin ball games and the money will follow PERIOD!!!!
In case you didn't notice ISU is in the top half of the league in revenue. Getting more resources for all Big XII schools benefits the conference when compared to the other leagues.

[Jello Biafra]

In case you didn't notice ISU is in the top half of the league in revenue. Getting more resources for all Big XII schools benefits the conference when compared to the other leagues.


how do you figure? we still only get what our part of the country pulls in. even though big XII games will be on in a majority of the country, people in illinois will still tune into northwestern vs. Illinois over nebraska vs. missouri etc.

we will gain little to no market share just because we go into larger areas. hell, chicago has more people in it than a majority of the Big XII major metroploitan areas combined and very few of them will care about what happens with the Colorado and Kansas Sate game....... the larger games will be played throughout the country anyway.....

[royalfan5]

how do you figure? we still only get what our part of the country pulls in. even though big XII games will be on in a majority of the country, people in illinois will still tune into northwestern vs. Illinois over nebraska vs. missouri etc.

we will gain little to no market share just because we go into larger areas. hell, chicago has more people in it than a majority of the Big XII major metroploitan areas combined and very few of them will care about what happens with the Colorado and Kansas Sate game....... the larger games will be played throughout the country anyway.....
I watch other conference games all the time because they are on. I would rather watch a Big XII game, but since it isn't available I will watch Iowa-Indiana because it is on. I'm guessing that people elsewhere will do the same. Plus you have large alumni groups in other areas. NU has a large alumni/fan contingent in California, as well as Chicago and Minneapolis. I bet other schools do too. I think you would be surprised what kind of numbers a wider variety of Big XII games would pull.

[Jello Biafra]

probably...but speaking from experience, in my little polish village south of chicago.....if it wasn't notre dumb or meatchicken, it wasn't on. period. course it was/is serious bears area (matter of fact the bears camp there in the summer now) but as far as college football goes, unless it was a major game, ou is simply not on. i have plenty of high school buddies that i call on game day and fill them in.

[royalfan5]

probably...but speaking from experience, in my little polish village south of chicago.....if it wasn't notre dumb or meatchicken, it wasn't on. period. course it was/is serious bears area (matter of fact the bears camp there in the summer now) but as far as college football goes, unless it was a major game, ou is simply not on. i have plenty of high school buddies that i call on game day and fill them in.
That's the goal of the ISU AD is to get those games on, and in part create new revenue to share.

[goingoneight]

I'm sorry, Mr. Joe Castiglione... you can't upgrade your stadium until we help Oklahoma State, the school who keeps crying wolf about you. Did we mention that your contribution will help Texas Tech players get nicer seats on their bus to Norman? Thank you very much for saving the Kansas State program since their fans don't show up to pay the bills, either.


Sheesh, at least Texas contributes among our other various little "rivals."

[Paperclip]

More Money in total, and more potential exposure.

Let's talk wins and losses. Wins mean money and exposure. How does helping other teams get better help OU win more games? In what world does giving up one's competitive advantage make sense?

[royalfan5]

I'm sorry, Mr. Joe Castiglione... you can't upgrade your stadium until we help Oklahoma State, the school who keeps crying wolf about you. Did we mention that your contribution will help Texas Tech players get nicer seats on their bus to Norman? Thank you very much for saving the Kansas State program since their fans don't show up to pay the bills, either.


Sheesh, at least Texas contributes among our other various little "rivals."
It's revenue sharing from the TV contract, not revenue sharing from all sources. If you have a system where 12 schools are equal partners, it makes sense to treat them all equally in regard to shared resources.

[royalfan5]

Let's talk wins and losses. Wins mean money and exposure. How does helping other teams get better help OU win more games? In what world does giving up one's competitive advantage make sense?
Because you get better by playing better teams. Competition breeds success. I doubt the only way Oklahoma can succeed is if they other teams are poor. Plus bear in mind, Oklahoma still has the advantage of their tradition, coaching staff, and fans. Oklahoma is still going to have more resources under this system, unless Sooner fans quit going to games, giving money, and buying gear. In addition the sharing of TV revenue can help the Big XII become more competive in all sports by allowing better funding of non-revenue sports.

[Paperclip]

How's revenue sharing working out for the Yankees?

[royalfan5]

How's revenue sharing working out for the Yankees?
How's it working for the NFL?

[Paperclip]

Parity. If I'm Iowa State, sure I want parity. If I'm Oklahoma or Texas I don't.

[goingoneight]

It's revenue sharing from the TV contract, not revenue sharing from all sources. If you have a system where 12 schools are equal partners, it makes sense to treat them all equally in regard to shared resources.


Even so, it's pretty clear that the top 3 are comfortably on top. And deservingly so.

[royalfan5]

Parity. If I'm Iowa State, sure I want parity. If I'm Oklahoma or Texas I don't.
But Oklahoma and Texas are also part of the Big XII which is competing against other leagues as well. What benefits Oklahoma more? being the Big Fish in a medium pond, or Being the Big Fish in a Big Pond. Making the entire Big XII better is a benefit for everyone involved. Do you really think revenue sharing would cause Oklahoma football to fall off the map? It's not like you would have to hire John Blake again if this went through. The Big 10 has done this for years, and the usual powers have stayed strong, and all their games are on TV.

[Paperclip]

We're still only talking about half the TV money pool. You're suggesting the conference take away the only thing left that rewards success. At least now the lesser teams have motivation to get better. You'd have them take that away while penalizing those who have earned their place on top.

[royalfan5]

We're still only talking about half the TV money pool. You're suggesting the conference take away the only thing left that rewards success. At least now the lesser teams have motivation to get better. You'd have them take that away while penalizing those who have earned their place on top.
The net effect of this would likely be deepening the pool for everyone. OU would see more money if every game were televised than they are now. Success would still be rewarded through tickets sales, licensing revenue, and donations. You also have to look at the fact that these aren't privately owned football franchises. The NCAA and Big XII effectively requires that schools balance their profitable enterprises with a plethora of losers that they must carry. Through revenue sharing it would enhance the opportunities for athletes in the non-revenue sports without hurting football programs, and through providing more revenue to the schools, it would encourage them to seek more revenue generating activities such as a Big XII Network. Instead of looking this as 12 competitors, you have to look at it as 12 partners in a Business Venture.

[Paperclip]

Instead of looking this as 12 competitors, you have to look at it as 12 partners in a Business Venture.

No I don't. We compete with these "partners" on the field and for recruits. You're treating the Big 12 like The Mile of Cars. If we don't get a kid we want I'd rather him go to Michigan or somewhere than Texas or Iowa State.

[snp]

By not choking in the last game of the year, ISU could have raked the past few years.

[insuranceman_22]

Screw em! If they want more money, then win some games. Does your boss give you more money because another guy got a raise or do you have to earn it with merit or time on the job? I don't want to get neg'd, but does this mirror parts of our society? If you haven't earned it, you don't get it.....put in the work!

[TripleOption14]

By not choking in the last game of the year, ISU could have raked the past few years.

AMEN!!!!!!!! What is it now 3 years in a row that the CCG was on the line and they blew it!! Cry me a friggin river!

And another thing.... where is all this "I never see Big 12 games on TV" coming from?!?!?! I live in Columbus and i see Big 12 games on TV ALL THE TIME! Of course i have the Directv college football package so i don't know if that makes a difference but the games ARE ON. I think one just has to be willing to upgrade their cable system.

[TexasLidig8r]

The viability of conferences will necessarily depend on increasing revenues from television contracts and corporate sponsors. Big 10/11 schools know this and are at the forefront in creating their own television package/network. Of course, they have more major metropolitan areas which translates to more television sets which translates to more revenue.

The Big 12 has to find a way to greatly increase revenue before addressing the manner in which the revenue is shared. Better television contracts and yes, perhaps addressing the need for its own network. Partnering universities with corporations to improve athletic and academic facilities while giving those corporations greater exposure and access to graduates and alums as prospective employees.

All this necessarily means the "bottom feeders" have to become more competitive and more attractive. Bring in better coaches who can recruit. Make your school attractive to high school kids. Athletes today in high school are stronger, faster as a result of increased exposure to diet and work out regiments. And, as a bottom feeder school, you want to attract kids, you schedule some big boys as non-conference opponents. ISU.. you want on television? Fine, go schedule Miami or Florida State to increase your presence in the talent rich state of Florida.. or USC or UCLA to give you exposure in California.

ISU and the bottom feeders must bring something to the table, before they are allowed to eat at the table by the "haves."

[Jello Biafra]

The viability of conferences will necessarily depend on increasing revenues from television contracts and corporate sponsors. Big 10/11 schools know this and are at the forefront in creating their own television package/network. Of course, they have more major metropolitan areas which translates to more television sets which translates to more revenue.

The Big 12 has to find a way to greatly increase revenue before addressing the manner in which the revenue is shared. Better television contracts and yes, perhaps addressing the need for its own network. Partnering universities with corporations to improve athletic and academic facilities while giving those corporations greater exposure and access to graduates and alums as prospective employees.

All this necessarily means the "bottom feeders" have to become more competitive and more attractive. Bring in better coaches who can recruit. Make your school attractive to high school kids. Athletes today in high school are stronger, faster as a result of increased exposure to diet and work out regiments. And, as a bottom feeder school, you want to attract kids, you schedule some big boys as non-conference opponents. ISU.. you want on television? Fine, go schedule Miami or Florida State to increase your presence in the talent rich state of Florida.. or USC or UCLA to give you exposure in California.

ISU and the bottom feeders must bring something to the table, before they are allowed to eat at the table by the "haves."



so.....

tell me again why baylor is in the big XII?

[colleyvillesooner]

Cause we have to have a private school...

[Jello Biafra]

Cause we have to have a private school...

I thought we had texas....o nm...they are just paid like a private school.

[insuranceman_22]

Lidiga8or - thanks, you put that much nicer than I did. I do think we see it pretty much the same way though.....and go Sooners!

[Bourbon St Sooner]

To me we're talking about such a small pool of money that it's almost irrelevant. Tx has a $75 mln budget and Isu has a $25 mln budget. How is taking a mln from Tx and giving it to ISU going to make them competitive?

I think marketing is the issue. Are there really that many more people that would rather watch Illinois vs. Indiana over Kansas vs Baylor?

[royalfan5]

To me we're talking about such a small pool of money that it's almost irrelevant. Tx has a $75 mln budget and Isu has a $25 mln budget. How is taking a mln from Tx and giving it to ISU going to make them competitive?

I think marketing is the issue. Are there really that many more people that would rather watch Illinois vs. Indiana over Kansas vs Baylor?
Nobody would lose money. The goal would be to get a bigger pool for everybody to share. Wouldn't it be better for OU and Texas to get 12 million a year from TV instead of 9?

[OSUAggie]

I'm having trouble connecting the dots of evenly shared revenue somehow generating a bigger TV contract....

I assume the premise is that if the "have nots" are granted an equal share of the pie they will have more money to generate a better product? I just don't see how $1 million is going to make the "have nots" that much better...

[CobraKai]

Fine...share the TV revenue equally, but then let the teams keep their bowl money. When we earn $13,000,000 for a BCS bowl and then mail $1,000,000 checks to each other school....forgive me if I am a little less than interested in how much more of our money they think they are entitled to.