Discussion in 'Colorado Football Message Board' started by 13Buff, Jun 20, 2010.
CU should be looking at $14.5Mil for starters
Let's all keep in mind that these are the same "consultants" estimating untold riches for the XII Lite. Suffice it to say that CU will be happy, whether it ends up being $12M, $15M, or whatever - mainly because they will be rid of the cancerous XII Lite.
So if Beebe doesn't pull a rabbit out of his ass, and fails to produce what he promised. What happens then? I've heard multiple people say the same thing as this article does.
Thought the last paragraphs were good. The Big 12-2 should be looking at $13.5mil per school.
I still haven't seen whether that is an apples-to-apples comparison either.
Is the Big 12's number including the bowl games and basketball distributions? The Pac-12 numbers seem to be solely TV money, the Big 12 guesstimates haven't been clear.
Remember that 14.5 is without the Pac 12 network too so we could get even more money.
Honestly could care less what the total is. We should be able to put together a quality program with anything close to that kind of money.
I have wondered about that, too.
If OU, Texas, and A&M each get $20 million - that's $60 million, right there.
Add in $15 million (rough average) for 7 other teams is another $105 million.
$165 million for the Big 12-2 seems pretty high. But the ACC did just ink a deal with ESPN for $155 million per year.
Heard on the Austin radio this morning the numbers were due to the following commitments/assurances from the networks (ESPiN and Fox)
ESPN will maintain the same payout (based on 12 teams plus CCG) to the remaining ten teams for the remainder of their contract - seems like that's an assured increase for revenue for the other schools due to loss of CU and Nebraska.
Here's the kicker - Fox agreed to re-structure their current contract to end (maintaining same payout PLUS an estimated additional amount - thus allowing Beebe to tout $20M and $14-17M) at the same time as the ESPN contract so both could be re-done at the same time in 2012. (14? I'm not clear when ESPN's contract ended.)
It will be interesting to see if Fox stays true to its "assurance" here.
Disclaimer: I may have missed some of info b/c it was being discussed as I drove through the security gate....
Even if CU does not earn as much in the Pac 10+2 as they would have in the Big 12-2, the more this moves along the happier I am with the move.
Allowing three teams in any conference to earn close to the same figure as the other 7 teams is no way to run a conference. What chance do ISU, KU, KSU, OSU, etc. have to compete in a conference where the big 3 get the lion's share of the money? (Not that they were competing before, i guess)
If you want to legitimately compete in the Big 12-2 conference, your name had better be OU, Texas, or Texas A&M. I just do not see how the smaller teams (ISU, KSU, Baylor, OSU, Kansas, Mizzou) can ever hope to legitimately compete in this new Big 12-2 conference.
What I don't get in this whole thing is why Tech and OSU weren't even considered to be one of the "haves" in the new deal.
I mean, those guys were loyal to UT/OU the entire and never wavered. You'd think they should've been included in the sweet deal give to UT/OU/aTm.
Why should they be? UT knew that the loss of either A&M or OU would kill any chance at saving the conference. They knew that neither of those other schools had what it took to make a move on it's own. Why slice the pie more generously for them? They're throw-ins.
That estimate is horse****. There are consultants for each side of the fence. I believe that Larry Scott holds some trump cards up his sleeve that he is going to lay on the table come negotiating time, and the bidding war will be on, ratcheting up this figure.
"Our conference has a long-standing policy of equal revenue sharing with some exceptions for football television revenue. We intend to keep that concept in place. There may be some changes as things evolve. The principals will stay in place. The arrangement worked out is that Utah will become a full member of the conference over a period of three years in regards to revenue sharing.''
-- Larry Scott
... 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.
-- Scott Woodward University of Washington AD
That's hardly news. The Pac-10 splits TV appearance money to the schools that appear. With the Denver market, CU has historically done pretty well getting on TV in the Big XII. I would expect the same in the 12-Pac. BTW, do you happen to have any figures on what CU was getting from those fees in the Big XII? That comparison would be kind of the point, if you had one...
Besides, shouldn't you be more concerned with how the Big X (XII) splits its revenues? (And go ahead and try to neg rep me again. Just so you know, it doesn't actually do anything... :lol
Separate names with a comma.