Big 12 hit paydirt with Fox Sports TV deal
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/andy_staples/04/13/big.12…
"According to Sports Business Journal, that deal will pay the 10-member league $90 million annually. That's $30 million a year more than the first-tier deal with ESPN/ABC that runs through 2016."
This does seem like a windfall for the Big12. However Staples fails to mention the uneven revenue sharing in the conference which could still hurt the conference's long term viability.
And the Big 12 still faced the problem that had plagued it since its inception -- unequal revenue sharing. Texas, Oklahoma and Texas A&M receive the most money because they play on TV the most. This beef was mitigated somewhat by the sheer terror Baylor, Kansas, Kansas State and Iowa State faced when they realized they might be left out of the BCS conference mix if the Big 12 folded. They're just happy to still be there, but the issue seemed like a potential bone of contention for other schools. The only way to eliminate the grousing would be to rake in so much money that Texas Tech wouldn't care if Oklahoma's pile of $100 bills was a few feet taller. Beebe did that.This is the kind of thread that needs Frank the Tank-level input for true insight, but I'll try my best: Beebe is betting that as long as the individual schools are at least content with their slice of the pie, as well as the security of being in an auto-qualifier BCS conference, they will stay in the Big XII. This might be harder to justify if, say, Texas goes into a prolonged tailspin, or the Iowa States of the conference somehow become powerhouses.
That would be one heck of a tailspin. It would have to drag down the Sooners and probably the Aggies, and maybe Missouri with them. The truth of the matter is, the second tier of the Texas+9 Conference will never have anywhere else to go, outside of the unprecedented rise of another conference...some sort of ascendent Big East, or if Conference USA ever became AQ somehow. Anything short and they will always realize they're better off as remora fish in the slipsteam of the schools at the grownups table. Sad, but they're aren't many options for the Iowa States of the world.
The landscape of the Big XII would have to change completely to make the unequal revenue issue a true threat to the viability of the conference. The little guys don't have anywhere to go unless C-USA becomes a mammoth AND the top four programs in the conference fall to pieces; we both know that's not going to happen with the Texas recruiting base being what it is, and, well, C-USA being what it is.
Do you remember the big 8?
April 14th, 2011 at 12:01 PM ^
That's a good point. WHile it's improbable, what happens if in 5 years, ISU is the class of the conference and decides they want more. What happens if Texas, in 10 years is terrible and for a period of time and the other 9 schools decide they are carrying their weight? Those are the things that can mess this all up. If everyone stays at approximately the same level, then everything will be fine but if the extremes happen this thing could fall apart again.
Also, I read a rumor somwhere (no link, can't remember where it was) that Texas wanted 400 million for any school that wanted to leave.
It doesn't matter if Texas starts to play poorly and ISU goes all K-State in the 90s on the Big 12. Texas is the flagship school in a heavily populated football mad state. It has a fantastic athletic department with great teams and is in a great town.
ISU is in Iowa. They are never going to be the draw Texas is to fans or to recruits. This makes their staying power really low (like K-State in the 90s).
Texas football is worth more than just about any pro football team and is flexing its muscles appropriately.
I agree with you. My point wasn't about the reality you pointed out. Through this whole thing, every fanbase outside of Texas' has criticized them and claimed it was all their fault that everything was in shambles. I did not. They were operating like a capitalistic entity in a capitalistic country. They are the backbone of the Big 12 and that won't change. My point was that the other schools could come to think they needed to change and that would bring instability. The point wasn't that if Texas is down for a period of time it should change. It shouldn't. They are the income for the conference and they deserve to get more than the other teams.
If I recall correctly, BTN gets each of 12 B1G schools approx 22 million a year, so more then 2x the avg of the b12 payout.
<br>
<br>Mizzou has to be very upset with how this has turned out.
April 14th, 2011 at 10:22 AM ^
This is the part of the article that all MSM writers miss and Delany hit perfectly. College football was and STILL is massively undervalued. The Big 12 doesn't have nearly the following or content of the Big 10 or SEC, yet pulled a decent offer.
I can't wait to see what ESPN/ABC shell out for the Big Ten in 2015 (I think? Maybe '16?) in addition to the new advertising dollars that will come in because we've added a significant amount of live content (the stuff for which the BTN can charge sponsors a decent number instead of Rotel commercials during Big Ten's Best) by adding Nebraska.
Yes, it's good for the Big 12, but it's all relative. People were freaking out about how much the SEC got when they signed their deal, but it's looking less and less monstrous each time the ACC/Big 12 and soon the Pac-12 sign deals. I'm glad we have a guy like Jim Delany driving the bus because he seems to realize college football is the second most valuable sports media property behind the NFL.
I don't have the link, but the Sports Business Journal had a blurb some months back that the Big Ten was renegotiating its contract with ABC/ESPN due to the addition of Nebraska and not waiting for the 2015/6 timeframe. Obviously, all this ties into other issues, including the decision to be made on whether or not the Big Ten goes forward with a nine-game conference schedule.
We'll see how this finally shakes out, but per the Michigan Athletic Department's FY 2011 budget published last June, the university was expecting over $22M in conference distributions. Those distributions include revenue from teleivsion for football and men's basketball, net bowl game revenue, the NCAA men's basketball tournament and other sources.
The FY 2012 projections should be out in around two months, and that number should include revenue for the conference championship game with should bump up that $22M figure by at least $1M. Also keep in mind that the ABC/ESPN contract signed back in 2006 has an accelerator clause, so it pays more each year as the contract progresses. Add in whatever the Big Ten Network pays and no one should be surprised to see the conference distributions at least be in the vicinity of $25M. Of course, that number could well be changed if any contract renegotiation is completed and put in place later this calendar year.
Glad to see more competition in college football coverage as FOX strengthens its foothold (which is pretty formidable if you include the B1G/FSN joint venture). There has been a period of incredibly biased coverage of the SEC through ABC/ESPN. All conferences deserve accolades and premier coverage based upon meritocracy; however, the media mantra of, "If it ain't SEC then it ain't football" has become quite annoying. Such bias has ramifications on national polls + Heisman race to the extent where I believe that they are not completely dependent upon merit, but coverage or "hype", which in-turn is manipulated by ABC/ESPN through their incentive to promote their product.
Therefore, in the end, it will be a better outcome for all college football fans through more universal coverage and competition that breeds and overall better product and an equal level playing field in the polls and Heisman voting.
My only concern is that with more networks involved it further complicates the evolution of a college playoff system. If Disney (ABC/ESPN) had promoted the concept of a playoff further the BCS may have listened given the syndication money and negotiating power that Disney holds (obviously this is all speculation, I am sure that someone at Disney saw the sensibility of it but it never gained the traction that it should have).
You may be referring to an SEC bias on ABC/ESPN from their analysts maybe, but a large chunk of their games are televised on CBS. Especially the Saturday afternoon games.
April 14th, 2011 at 10:31 AM ^
I don't think you can call the one afternoon game, occasional night game and the SEC Championship a large chunk. I think CBS aired something like 17 SEC games over the course of the 14-week regular season. ESPN/ABC is still doing the vast majority of SEC games - although you could argue which channel gets on its knees harder for ESS EEE SEE SPEED.
CBS does have first rights for the game of their choice for their Saturday afternoon slot, so they do the large chunk of the top matchups.
April 14th, 2011 at 11:16 AM ^
CBS had the best games last year, obviously.
I just don't know how people can say "lol SEC getz everything cuz they has big contract". Every conference has a big contract from ESPN. Guess what, the B1G has the most money flowing in. Those schools have their own network!
This is the same guy who tried saying that USC getting "spanked" in the 2005 Rose Bowl proves ESPN bias. Excuse me if I don't listen intently to everything he says.
CBS takes one SEC game per weekend.
games.
What the hell else are they showing at 12:00 and 7:30 on a Saturday that is so compelling?
If I were a B12 fan, I'd be less than pleased due to having to listen to Fox's team of NFL junkies fumble their way through a college broadcast. The last few years of the BCS bowl games on Fox have been excrutiating for people like me who are not NFLers.
April 14th, 2011 at 10:11 AM ^
Hopefully then doing games on a regular basis will improve FOX's telecasting
You could tell they felt this was beneath them but they were doing it bacause they were obligated/wanted the extra money.
Good point I saw on the Syracuse boards:
"Back when Neb and Colorado left, Texas, A&M, and OU would get $20 million each from TV to stay put? So when you take the $90 million from FOX, add in the $60 million from ESPN, and subtract the $60 million from the Big 3, you are left with about $12.5 million for the rest of the schools. Which is about what they get now."
April 14th, 2011 at 10:10 AM ^
So in other words, the title of this thread is a wee bit misleading?
April 14th, 2011 at 10:41 AM ^
I don't blame the OP, MSM journalists are terrible with numbers.
Exhibit A: SI/CBS Sports "College Football and Crime"
Exhibit B: Dan Wetzel pulling numbers from thin air in "Wetzel's Playoff Plan"3
I can keep going. A few accounting and statistics courses should be mandatory for journalism school. If I were a journalist, I would be really embarrassed to be associated with people like this. I mean, posters on MGoBlog and bloggers across the country do a much better job of breaking down the numbers to see what happened.
This Andy Staples article should be titled "How Texas (and Oklahoma via Texas) squeezed a lot more money from their partners". Dan Beebe knows this; he's just doing his best to pretend the Big 12 isn't still unstable.
April 14th, 2011 at 10:45 AM ^
Here in B12 country (Kansas City) the local sports honks are all over this as a victory. They estimated that the payout for KU/K-State and Mizzou would be 9-Million which is significantly higher then what they recieve from TV now.
They went so far as to boast good riddance to Nebraska (one less to ahre with) and that although they might smell bad and have crooked teeth they are dancing with the Texas prom queen and it is working out just fine. These schools are content being Longhorn subjects.
Bottom line Mizzou, KU and K-State simply want to remain together if possible. However any one of the three would cut throat the other if it meant saving themselves. I am not sure if Texas will eventually make more money alone then what the schools of the B10 will make sharing but to be a subject of Texas...that just blows.
April 14th, 2011 at 11:55 AM ^
No, they were gaurenteed the 20 when the new first tier contract comes up in 2015/16, not right away. If you figure even revenue sharing I find it hard to believe you won't see the first tier contract at 20 million more than second tier. That gives you your 20 for every school.
On the revenue sharing-Previously it had been based on appearances. So, with that structure, in the next 4 years the ISUs of the world would acutally benefit by appearing on the second tier options. I think this will force the Texas and Oklahomas to perhaps give a little bit in the future for the cut right now. I don't think we are going to see equal sharing in the Big 12 but I think it will become more equal than it has been in the past because of the fact that the places where Texas will be on TV aren't paying as much as where the ISU's and Kansas' are playing.
FWIW, I'm an ISU alumn, so when looking at this perhaps there's some wishful thinking but at the same time I'm just happy to still be in a BCS conference. Eight months ago that wasn't a certain thing.
April 14th, 2011 at 10:40 AM ^
As others have noted, this is more of a windfall for Texas, OU, and A&M than the entire conference. Not surprising, but definitely not as great of a deal as I'm sure some will trumpet.
April 14th, 2011 at 12:40 PM ^
And A&M can get more money in the SEC, where they actually want to go.
I can't imagine that the SEC is extremely interested in expanding. To balance it out by adding another team, they'd have to add VT, FSU or Miami. Don't know if A&M is worth the trouble.