Why Nebraska left for "greener" pastures...

[walksalone]

I hope Missouri enjoys being nothing but Texas and Oklahoma's Beeeeeeotch, for the rest of eternity.

I just love how even though there was nothing that was said against NE, or promoting MU. Someone always has to come at me or MU with something completely off topic and out of the blue nearly ever time I post.

"I hope Missouri, and everyone else that isn't Texas or OU, have enjoyed being nothing but Texas and Oklahoma's Beeeeeeotch, and Texas's for the rest of eternity"

Fixed it for ya.

There we go, now it's right...

Not too mention, how can we be Texas's b!^@h, when we're not in the same conference anymore? I think somebody has to readjust their fire on that one...

 

[Nebula]

I just love how even though there was nothing that was said against NE, or promoting MU. Someone always has to come at me or MU with something completely off topic and out of the blue nearly ever time I post.

"I hope Missouri Nebraska enjoyed being nothing but Texas and Oklahoma's Beeeeeeotch, and Texas's for the rest of eternity"

Fixed it for ya.

In light of the bolded, I fear the sentence was properly constructed in the first place.

(I really hope MU ends up joining us in the Big 10. I seriously mean that. I have considered MU our only real rival since the inception of the Big 12. I hope you guys kill EVERYONE next year, unless we play you for some reason.)

Oh yeah...almost forgot. Missouri sucks. :lol: (j/k)

 

[Nebula]

I hope Missouri enjoys being nothing but Texas and Oklahoma's Beeeeeeotch, for the rest of eternity.

I just love how even though there was nothing that was said against NE, or promoting MU. Someone always has to come at me or MU with something completely off topic and out of the blue nearly ever time I post.

"I hope Missouri, and everyone else that isn't Texas or OU, have enjoyed being nothing but Texas and Oklahoma's Beeeeeeotch, and Texas's for the rest of eternity"

Fixed it for ya.

There we go, now it's right...

Not too mention, how can we be Texas's b!^@h, when we're not in the same conference anymore? I think somebody has to readjust their fire on that one...

Beat me to it

 

[jayhawk]

I would imagine this deal will get KU and MU more money than we would have gotten had we had to pack off to the Big East. Hey, you guys went to the Big 10, good for you. MU was trying to go to, but did not, I am glad we are still with our rival due to mny deep and abiding love of hating them. Hard to hate a non conference team, so I am glad they are with us. If this is a better deal than we had and as good of one as we are going to get, it is a good deal. I get that the Huskers hate Texas, but I am not sure a lot of these shots are very fact based.

I can live with not splitting everytihing 12 even ways, but would like to see Basketball done more the same way if that is how we are doing it.

I'll miss you guys, will root for you in your new digs...

Everyone in life has to do what they have to do. We all have jobs, most of us because it is the best solution for our own situations. Some of us would not like to be in others jobs, some not even in their own, but we all do what we do. Not so different than THese Schools needing to do what is best for them in picking their conference. Not sure why calling people/fans/schools names for over that is really the right thing. (Unless they are Missouri Tigers, and you are a Jayhawk fan, then it is something one must do, as often as possible)

 

[VectorVictor]

Can someone check my math and tell me where I am making my mistake? 90+70 = 160. 160/10 = > 20.

Ill check it. Looks like you forgot the original 70 million from ABC/espn. Its an additional 70 for the new contract on top on the old 70. So 70+90+70=230

Fro--according to Matt's College Sports Media Blog, the current ABC/ESPN Big XII deal is 60 million/year, so Sipple was being generous to the tune of $10 million.

And I haven't seen $90 million for the Fox Sports (Cable) deal--the ceiling from reports is $70 million, and frankly, that value is inflated solely to stick it to ESPN/ABC when that contract comes up, and nothing more:

Linky link link

From a pure TV standpoint, today the Big 12 receives $60 million from ABC/ESPN for football on ABC, which includes the Texas-Texas A&M game if it airs on ESPN, and men’s basketball.

In short, each of the big three would make slightly more than $12.5 million total from ABC/ESPN and FSN using 2010’s TV appearances in football & men’s basketball, plus the shared revenue from the TV deal.

So if we’re at $13 million, how can we get to $20 million for these guys? NCAA credits from men’s basketball and bowl payouts then get lumped in. Some of that money is also distributed in favor of the teams who make the tournament and who goes to a bowl game.
In my opinion, its going to be close.

So in order for just the "Big 3" in the Big XII to sniff $20 million/year, they're going to 1) need to see a proportional increase with their ESPN/ABC contract (which is likely), and 2) they will have to add in bowl appearance money, and 3) add in basketball tourney appearance money.

Counter that with Nebraska, who (again, based on 2009 B1G payouts), would earn $22 million just for television as soon as they're a vested partner. This money does NOT include bowl appearance money, the recently-signed B1G Title Game contract money, or basketball post-season appearance money (not likely any time soon for Nebraska, sad to say).

---

If one subscribes to the philosophy that Texas operates on ego above all else, one could say their ESPN sweetheart deal was their way of making more money than Nebraska (and thus looking like they won the argument) on a yearly basis, and ESPN, sensing a golden opportunity to get another campus in their back pocket, decided to stroke Texas' ego with what ultimately amounts to lunch money for ESPN.

If you don't think this is plausible, I ask--what would the political fallout be in the Big XII if, in a few years when Nebraska's a vested member of the B1G, that they show a bigger number on their ledger for conference payouts and TV revenue than Texas? Without Mickey the White Knight, this was a very likely scenario for Texas, and one that Dodds and Beebe wouldn't be able to outlive.

 

[fro daddy]

Not too mention, how can we be Texas's b!^@h, when we're not in the same conference anymore? I think somebody has to readjust their fire on that one...

I was just being a smart butt. And although there is a lot a truth to the fisrt part walks, the second was basically a smart butt dig at the perception that you could not compete on the field or in money so you left. There was a large dose of :sarcasm and just being a smart*** involved.

In light of the bolded, I fear the sentence was properly constructed in the first place.

(I really hope MU ends up joining us in the Big 10. I seriously mean that. I have considered MU our only real rival since the inception of the Big 12. I hope you guys kill EVERYONE next year, unless we play you for some reason.)

Oh yeah...almost forgot. Missouri sucks. :lol: (j/k)

I dont know what will happen with the conferences and I try not to even worry about it. I cant help but think even if something goes down, that there is enough money and sucsess that MU would find a nice landing spot. And I had some high hopes for this year but that was with everyone returning. Still think we have a chance to be good, but it will be harder when your losing two players that could go in the top 10-15 of the draft.

And not trying to completely hijack this and take it in a different dirrection, but I am about as curious as to how the changes you guys are making added with the new conference and some of the big10 player loses from other teams will impact your next year. I was trying to put it all together last week and I feel like I dont yet have any grasp as to how good this next year could be for your team. Still alot of spring and summer to figure it out though.

 

[VectorVictor]

I would imagine this deal will get KU and MU more money than we would have gotten had we had to pack off to the Big East.

Maybe a modest bump, but nothing spectacular. A&M, Texas, and OU will hoard the lion's share for themselves, especially if you believe bottom-line ego will play a part in all of this.

And Jayhawk, considering Kansas was given leave to explore a Big East option w/o being tethered to Manhattan, I think that actually improves the odds of them landing a B1G invite when (not if) the conference goes to 14. Hell, considering the lack of quality NY/NJ schools (read: TV markets the B1G wants to add), taking one of the best basketball schools of all-time would be a hell of a consolation prize, especially since Basketball does well out east.

And FroDaddy--I'm thinking Mizzou would get an invite as well to 14. Adding both KU and MU locks up the St. Louis and KC markets, bolsters the basketball portfolio, brings in Illinois' rival, and it does little to devalue the conference.

Now, it's just a matter of when will the conferences go to 14.

 

[fro daddy]

Can someone check my math and tell me where I am making my mistake? 90+70 = 160. 160/10 = > 20.

Ill check it. Looks like you forgot the original 70 million from ABC/espn. Its an additional 70 for the new contract on top on the old 70. So 70+90+70=230

Fro--according to Matt's College Sports Media Blog, the current ABC/ESPN Big XII deal is 60 million/year, so Sipple was being generous to the tune of $10 million.

And I haven't seen $90 million for the Fox Sports (Cable) deal--the ceiling from reports is $70 million, and frankly, that value is inflated solely to stick it to ESPN/ABC when that contract comes up, and nothing more:

Linky link link

From a pure TV standpoint, today the Big 12 receives $60 million from ABC/ESPN for football on ABC, which includes the Texas-Texas A&M game if it airs on ESPN, and men’s basketball.

In short, each of the big three would make slightly more than $12.5 million total from ABC/ESPN and FSN using 2010’s TV appearances in football & men’s basketball, plus the shared revenue from the TV deal.

So if we’re at $13 million, how can we get to $20 million for these guys? NCAA credits from men’s basketball and bowl payouts then get lumped in. Some of that money is also distributed in favor of the teams who make the tournament and who goes to a bowl game.
In my opinion, its going to be close.

So in order for just the "Big 3" in the Big XII to sniff $20 million/year, they're going to 1) need to see a proportional increase with their ESPN/ABC contract (which is likely), and 2) they will have to add in bowl appearance money, and 3) add in basketball tourney appearance money.

Counter that with Nebraska, who (again, based on 2009 B1G payouts), would earn $22 million just for television as soon as they're a vested partner. This money does NOT include bowl appearance money, the recently-signed B1G Title Game contract money, or basketball post-season appearance money (not likely any time soon for Nebraska, sad to say).

---

If one subscribes to the philosophy that Texas operates on ego above all else, one could say their ESPN sweetheart deal was their way of making more money than Nebraska (and thus looking like they won the argument) on a yearly basis, and ESPN, sensing a golden opportunity to get another campus in their back pocket, decided to stroke Texas' ego with what ultimately amounts to lunch money for ESPN.

If you don't think this is plausible, I ask--what would the political fallout be in the Big XII if, in a few years when Nebraska's a vested member of the B1G, that they show a bigger number on their ledger for conference payouts and TV revenue than Texas? Without Mickey the White Knight, this was a very likely scenario for Texas, and one that Dodds and Beebe wouldn't be able to outlive.

The beef between TX and Ne, real or made up, was not the point of my post. You are correct that the ABC/ESPN deal is worth $60 mil. As reported yesterday the new 2nd tier fox deal is projected to be just over $90 mil a year for 13 years.

Last year the big 12 payed out a reported $137 million among the 12 teams. That number includes the tv/bowl/NCAA money.

The current standards of that amount will remain close to the same (loss of Neb bowl money, another team could easily make that up, say like Tx this next season) You take the two teams away, and add the reported addidional 70 million from fox. that is now $207 million between 10 teams. That includes no increase in tier one, which i believe we both think will happen. I have heard as low as 20 more and as high as 70 more. Who really knows though. There is also talk of the third tier becoming a big12 network that will only go to the 8 schools not creating their own network. That is rumored to be worth an additional 1-2 million per school.

Regardless of how long the big12 lasts and texas's perceved issue with Ne (reality seems much more like Ne's issues with Tx) this deal, if it comes to light in the way it is currently being discribed is a good thing for the other 8 schools. It would put the payouts, depending on apperances and sucsess, at a level higher than the ACC, Big East, PAC10 and SEC in some cases. OU and TX stand to make more than any conference school in the short term and the MU/OSU/ATM and maybe even KU depending on football will be inthe 20 mill or higher range. KSU/ISU 16-19. That is a lot of money even if it is short term and the big12 falls apart. If not they have set up a deal that keeps them in the top 3 range for conference money.

All thoughts of comparisions, and nebraska 5 years from now will have this amount are what clouds this for some. Nebraska got a good deal for them, If this goes as talked about its a good deal for the big 12. There can be more than one winner in this whole thing.

Side note:

Personally I dont have an issue with the split revenue either. Why should MU who is now making bowls and the NCAA tourney consistantly have to share any money they earn with programs that are not doing one or either? Your program invests the money in facilities and recruiting and coaches. Why should you be forced to give back to sisters of the poor? If ISU/KSU wants more money, fundraise, and get what you need to compete and win on the field. Get a good team that makes it on TV and get to the post season. :boxosoap

 

[SuperBuckFan08]

When does Nebraska actually get a full slice of the pie from the B1G? It's a couple years after being fully integrated into the conference right?

 

[Blaze1up]

Until the Big XII folds, next season.

 

[Blaze1up]

I would imagine this deal will get KU and MU more money than we would have gotten had we had to pack off to the Big East.

 

[bball_backer]

The Big XII will only be a conference long enough to experience MAYBE 2 years of that new deal.

 

[huKSer]

... Hard to hate a non conference team, so I am glad they are with us. ...

You better take that up with Killer Cacti - Clemson and USC do a pretty good job.

 

[VectorVictor]

The beef between TX and Ne, real or made up, was not the point of my post. You are correct that the ABC/ESPN deal is worth $60 mil. As reported yesterday the new 2nd tier fox deal is projected to be just over $90 mil a year for 13 years.

Last year the big 12 payed out a reported $137 million among the 12 teams. That number includes the tv/bowl/NCAA money.

The current standards of that amount will remain close to the same (loss of Neb bowl money, another team could easily make that up, say like Tx this next season) You take the two teams away, and add the reported addidional 70 million from fox. that is now $207 million between 10 teams. That includes no increase in tier one, which i believe we both think will happen. I have heard as low as 20 more and as high as 70 more. Who really knows though. There is also talk of the third tier becoming a big12 network that will only go to the 8 schools not creating their own network. That is rumored to be worth an additional 1-2 million per school.

Regardless of how long the big12 lasts and texas's perceved issue with Ne (reality seems much more like Ne's issues with Tx) this deal, if it comes to light in the way it is currently being discribed is a good thing for the other 8 schools. It would put the payouts, depending on apperances and sucsess, at a level higher than the ACC, Big East, PAC10 and SEC in some cases. OU and TX stand to make more than any conference school in the short term and the MU/OSU/ATM and maybe even KU depending on football will be inthe 20 mill or higher range. KSU/ISU 16-19. That is a lot of money even if it is short term and the big12 falls apart. If not they have set up a deal that keeps them in the top 3 range for conference money.

All thoughts of comparisions, and nebraska 5 years from now will have this amount are what clouds this for some. Nebraska got a good deal for them, If this goes as talked about its a good deal for the big 12. There can be more than one winner in this whole thing.

Side note:

Personally I dont have an issue with the split revenue either. Why should MU who is now making bowls and the NCAA tourney consistantly have to share any money they earn with programs that are not doing one or either? Your program invests the money in facilities and recruiting and coaches. Why should you be forced to give back to sisters of the poor? If ISU/KSU wants more money, fundraise, and get what you need to compete and win on the field. Get a good team that makes it on TV and get to the post season. :boxosoap

Fro--nowhere does it say the Fox Sports deal is $90 million. The DMN link and the Matt's College Sports Media Blog give a ceiling of $70 million, and the DMN cites a realistic $60 million. This isn't a second Fox deal--this is the current Fox deal for second-tier access on Fox Sports (and ultimately FX) for Big XII college sports, and it replaces the existing $20 million deal.

Regarding your math above, you only get to add $50 million--the Fox contract is an improvement of $40-$50 million, as the current contract is for $20 million. $70 million - $20 million = $50 million. That means, using your $137 million figure, you see a pot swell to $187 million, or $18.7 million/school.

But again, we're including Bowl payouts, NCAA tourney appearances, and the Big XII title game money. The B1G figures of $22 million/school are only for Big 10 Network revenue and ESPN/ABC payouts. These payouts did not include bowl game revenue or title game revenue ($20 million/yr for the conference, or $1.67 million/school).

So until the ESPN/ABC contract is renegotiated, it is extremely likely that based on conference payouts, the B1G will exceed that of the Big XII schools, including the Big 3...which goes hand-in-hand with ESPN preying upon Texas' bottom line ego to sign a sweetheart deal to swell their taxpayer-funded, oil-stained coffers.

The other thing to remember here that is if ESPN pays an increase in proportion to the Fox Sports increase, that only serves to benefit the B1G when they go back to the table with ESPN immediately following the Big XII contract merry-go-round. So again--whatever the Big XII can do, the B1G can do one better.

Now, to add to the B1G's fortunes, there are still two other areas of revenue increase unavailable to the Big XII--national expansion of the B1G Network, and the inclusion of Media Corp (for Fox OtA broadcasting rights) and/or CBS (depending on how the SEC re-up shakes out) for B1G rights.

In the end, if Texas didn't have it's ESPN deal, it would had been out-gained in TV revenue by NU once they were a fully-vested member of the B1G. And that would had been a rather embarrassing problem to spin for the vermin of Austin and Irving.

 

[VectorVictor]

When does Nebraska actually get a full slice of the pie from the B1G? It's a couple years after being fully integrated into the conference right?

We were never told, SuperBuck. IIRC, Dr. Tom and Delany said it was 'proprietary information'. However, it was stipulated that Nebraska would earn no less than what it's split in the Big XII would be, but I do not know if that accounts for new contracts or not.

While this is somewhat wishy-washy, it makes sense, as the terms given to Nebraska are likely not to be the same as Notre Dame (if/when), nor the same as a Kansas, Missouri, or Rutgers, among others, down the road.

I would be shocked to find that it takes Nebraska more than three years of n00b status before it's fully vested--Nebraska, assuming we go 10-4 again, would stand to make the move pay off after the first year. Hell, adding Nebraska has already garnered the conference $120 million/6 years of found money.

That's worth something, right?