The ESPN deal will still be under the old rules but the Fox deal is now equally shared. Not completely equal but now only the 30m of the 60 million from ESPN is the only unequally shared revenue.

http://www.cyclones.com/ViewArticle.dbml...=204975607

Quote:The spring meeting of Big 12 Directors of Athletics ended Thursday and much of the discussion was about operational issues for the 10-team league.
One of the most noteworthy decisions by the league ADs was to equally distribute nearly $1 billion in revenues to be generated over the life of a 13-year conference partnership with Fox Sports for second-tier football television rights.

That decision is in stark contrast to how most television revenue was divided in prior years. Prior to this decision, the majority of television revenue was provided to the schools that appeared on the actual telecasts.
...

Well there goes my hopes of Iowa State and Missouri going to The Big 9+2+Ohio State.

(06-03-2011 10:18 AM)Sammy11 Wrote:  The ESPN deal will still be under the old rules but the Fox deal is now equally shared. Not completely equal but now only the 30m of the 60 million from ESPN is the only unequally shared revenue.

http://www.cyclones.com/ViewArticle.dbml...=204975607

Quote:The spring meeting of Big 12 Directors of Athletics ended Thursday and much of the discussion was about operational issues for the 10-team league.
One of the most noteworthy decisions by the league ADs was to equally distribute nearly $1 billion in revenues to be generated over the life of a 13-year conference partnership with Fox Sports for second-tier football television rights.

That decision is in stark contrast to how most television revenue was divided in prior years. Prior to this decision, the majority of television revenue was provided to the schools that appeared on the actual telecasts.

As a result of this decision, the Big 12 will now share its overall revenue more equally than any time in its history– clearly a sign that the 10 institutions are committed to the “new Big 12”.

Commissioner Dan Beebe also reiterated that the Big 12 will remain a 10-team league and that no secret search is underway to identify new conference members.

True league champions will be crowned in most sports. There will be no complaining about unbalanced schedules in the Big 12’s future.

“Now, I can say this: I was always a bit jealous of the Pac-10,” Beebe said in reference to that league’s former practice of playing a round-robin schedule in football and home/away round-robins in basketball.

The competitive excellence of the Big 12 is among the best in the nation. That won’t change. There is, however, a renewed commitment by league members to one another and a stronger financial foundation.

Actually the Big12 has pretty much always had equal revenue distribution , the only exception was 1/2 of the TV revenue and that only amounted to a 2 or 3 million dollar diffeerence in the top scchols revenue and the bottom. If that revenue had been distributed equally it would only have amounted to less tham 1.5 million per team.

Also, OU, Texas and A&M turned down the offer to receive all of the revenue the conference got when Nebraska and Colorado paid their exit fees. That revenue was divided equally.

Texas has been getting a bad rap on being greedy and running the conference. That is not the case.

(06-03-2011 10:36 AM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(06-03-2011 10:18 AM)Sammy11 Wrote:  The ESPN deal will still be under the old rules but the Fox deal is now equally shared. Not completely equal but now only the 30m of the 60 million from ESPN is the only unequally shared revenue.

http://www.cyclones.com/ViewArticle.dbml...=204975607

Quote:The spring meeting of Big 12 Directors of Athletics ended Thursday and much of the discussion was about operational issues for the 10-team league.
One of the most noteworthy decisions by the league ADs was to equally distribute nearly $1 billion in revenues to be generated over the life of a 13-year conference partnership with Fox Sports for second-tier football television rights.

That decision is in stark contrast to how most television revenue was divided in prior years. Prior to this decision, the majority of television revenue was provided to the schools that appeared on the actual telecasts.

As a result of this decision, the Big 12 will now share its overall revenue more equally than any time in its history– clearly a sign that the 10 institutions are committed to the “new Big 12”.

Commissioner Dan Beebe also reiterated that the Big 12 will remain a 10-team league and that no secret search is underway to identify new conference members.

True league champions will be crowned in most sports. There will be no complaining about unbalanced schedules in the Big 12’s future.

“Now, I can say this: I was always a bit jealous of the Pac-10,” Beebe said in reference to that league’s former practice of playing a round-robin schedule in football and home/away round-robins in basketball.

The competitive excellence of the Big 12 is among the best in the nation. That won’t change. There is, however, a renewed commitment by league members to one another and a stronger financial foundation.

Actually the Big12 has pretty much always had equal revenue distribution , the only exception was 1/2 of the TV revenue and that only amounted to a 2 or 3 million dollar diffeerence in the top scchols revenue and the bottom. If that revenue had been distributed equally it would only have amounted to less tham 1.5 million per team.

Also, OU, Texas and A&M turned down the offer to receive all of the revenue the conference got when Nebraska and Colorado paid their exit fees. That revenue was divided equally.

Texas has been getting a bad rap on being greedy and running the conference. That is not the case.

Buddy, I agree and have said the same many times. Its way overblown but its nice to see at least a good pr effort to shut down the whining from fans.

(06-03-2011 10:55 AM)Sammy11 Wrote:  

(06-03-2011 10:36 AM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(06-03-2011 10:18 AM)Sammy11 Wrote:  The ESPN deal will still be under the old rules but the Fox deal is now equally shared. Not completely equal but now only the 30m of the 60 million from ESPN is the only unequally shared revenue.

http://www.cyclones.com/ViewArticle.dbml...=204975607

Quote:The spring meeting of Big 12 Directors of Athletics ended Thursday and much of the discussion was about operational issues for the 10-team league.
One of the most noteworthy decisions by the league ADs was to equally distribute nearly $1 billion in revenues to be generated over the life of a 13-year conference partnership with Fox Sports for second-tier football television rights.

That decision is in stark contrast to how most television revenue was divided in prior years. Prior to this decision, the majority of television revenue was provided to the schools that appeared on the actual telecasts.

As a result of this decision, the Big 12 will now share its overall revenue more equally than any time in its history– clearly a sign that the 10 institutions are committed to the “new Big 12”.

Commissioner Dan Beebe also reiterated that the Big 12 will remain a 10-team league and that no secret search is underway to identify new conference members.

True league champions will be crowned in most sports. There will be no complaining about unbalanced schedules in the Big 12’s future.

“Now, I can say this: I was always a bit jealous of the Pac-10,” Beebe said in reference to that league’s former practice of playing a round-robin schedule in football and home/away round-robins in basketball.

The competitive excellence of the Big 12 is among the best in the nation. That won’t change. There is, however, a renewed commitment by league members to one another and a stronger financial foundation.

Actually the Big12 has pretty much always had equal revenue distribution , the only exception was 1/2 of the TV revenue and that only amounted to a 2 or 3 million dollar diffeerence in the top scchols revenue and the bottom. If that revenue had been distributed equally it would only have amounted to less tham 1.5 million per team.

Also, OU, Texas and A&M turned down the offer to receive all of the revenue the conference got when Nebraska and Colorado paid their exit fees. That revenue was divided equally.

Texas has been getting a bad rap on being greedy and running the conference. That is not the case.

Buddy, I agree and have said the same many times. Its way overblown but its nice to see at least a good pr effort to shut down the whining from fans.

No whining here, but I disagree. Any how HOUSTON is not in the Big12-2 so I really don't care what goes on there.

It wasn't necessarily greed or the TV money that had the other Big 12 schools angry with Texas. They still call a lot of shots in the conference, like the ending of the partial qualifiers that Nebraska relied on for so long. Plus there was the north-south split that didn't sit well with all the schools. They wouldn't sign on for a Big 12 Network but wanted to create their own Longhorn Network. Then last summer, Texas wanted all the other schools to commit to the conference -- while they were conducting discussions with the Big Ten and Pac-10. Of course by then, the Pac-10 and Big Ten had announced their plans to expand, and the Big 12 schools were ripe for the picking.

And consider that Missouri (hell, even the governor of that state) was all but begging for a Big Ten invite and Texas A&M was thisclose to bolting for the SEC. It's not just the fans who are tired of Texas.

(06-03-2011 06:44 PM)moo Wrote:  It wasn't necessarily greed or the TV money that had the other Big 12 schools angry with Texas. They still call a lot of shots in the conference, like the ending of the partial qualifiers that Nebraska relied on for so long. Plus there was the north-south split that didn't sit well with all the schools. They wouldn't sign on for a Big 12 Network but wanted to create their own Longhorn Network. Then last summer, Texas wanted all the other schools to commit to the conference -- while they were conducting discussions with the Big Ten and Pac-10. Of course by then, the Pac-10 and Big Ten had announced their plans to expand, and the Big 12 schools were ripe for the picking.

And consider that Missouri (hell, even the governor of that state) was all but begging for a Big Ten invite and Texas A&M was thisclose to bolting for the SEC. It's not just the fans who are tired of Texas.

The reason Missouri wanted in the Big1o was not because of Texas. It was all about academics and the Big10 money. With academics the primary reason. The Governor even said so.

Imho, this change was initiated by Texas and Oklahoma to help prevent Texas A&M from leaving if the SEC again tries to acquire the Aggies this summer after the Texas legislature adjourns this summer. To a lesser extent, this move was to placate Mizzou and Kansas in case the Big East got the word from ESPN that they would pay a lot more money if those two schools were acquired.

I still half expect the SEC to back a large truck load of money into Texas A&M's front yard and say "Howdy, shall I unload this texas size stack of scratch right here?"

(06-03-2011 06:44 PM)moo Wrote:  It wasn't necessarily greed or the TV money that had the other Big 12 schools angry with Texas. They still call a lot of shots in the conference, like the ending of the partial qualifiers that Nebraska relied on for so long. Plus there was the north-south split that didn't sit well with all the schools. They wouldn't sign on for a Big 12 Network but wanted to create their own Longhorn Network. Then last summer, Texas wanted all the other schools to commit to the conference -- while they were conducting discussions with the Big Ten and Pac-10. Of course by then, the Pac-10 and Big Ten had announced their plans to expand, and the Big 12 schools were ripe for the picking.

And consider that Missouri (hell, even the governor of that state) was all but begging for a Big Ten invite and Texas A&M was thisclose to bolting for the SEC. It's not just the fans who are tired of Texas.

I cannot speak on the situation with the other Big-12 schools, but Okla U and Okla St U will always hitch their wagon to the Texas horse. In a way, it appears the Big East feels the same way sort of--hitching their wagon on the Texas horse, TCU.

The Cotton Bowl, a BCS bowl in the making, the Alamo Bowl against PAC #2, and the Texas Bowl against Big Ten...add it all up, and it all fits together for the Big-12 conference.

(06-03-2011 07:18 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  Imho, this change was initiated by Texas and Oklahoma to help prevent Texas A&M from leaving if the SEC again tries to acquire the Aggies this summer after the Texas legislature adjourns this summer. To a lesser extent, this move was to placate Mizzou and Kansas in case the Big East got the word from ESPN that they would pay a lot more money if those two schools were acquired.

I still half expect the SEC to back a large truck load of money into Texas A&M's front yard and say "Howdy, shall I unload this texas size stack of scratch right here?"

That is way to funny, but I am with you there. A&M is sick and tired of UT and there me, me, me first ice breaker meetings.

(06-03-2011 07:18 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  Imho, this change was initiated by Texas and Oklahoma to help prevent Texas A&M from leaving if the SEC again tries to acquire the Aggies this summer after the Texas legislature adjourns this summer. To a lesser extent, this move was to placate Mizzou and Kansas in case the Big East got the word from ESPN that they would pay a lot more money if those two schools were acquired.

I still half expect the SEC to back a large truck load of money into Texas A&M's front yard and say "Howdy, shall I unload this texas size stack of scratch right here?"

I completely agree with you and I hope it happens. I hope A&M is still talking to the SEC and I hope UT, Tech, OU and OSU go to the PAC-12. When the Big 12 had Colorado and Nebraska it was a good/decent conference but playing the Kansas schools plus Iowa St on yearly basis is boring. Would you rather go on a road trip to Ames, Manahattan and Lawrence or Tempe, LA, NoCal and Oregon?

That being said, with the money we are getting, I see the Big 12 maintaining the status quo.

(06-03-2011 08:13 PM)BigHouston Wrote:  

(06-03-2011 07:18 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  Imho, this change was initiated by Texas and Oklahoma to help prevent Texas A&M from leaving if the SEC again tries to acquire the Aggies this summer after the Texas legislature adjourns this summer. To a lesser extent, this move was to placate Mizzou and Kansas in case the Big East got the word from ESPN that they would pay a lot more money if those two schools were acquired.

I still half expect the SEC to back a large truck load of money into Texas A&M's front yard and say "Howdy, shall I unload this texas size stack of scratch right here?"

That is way to funny, but I am with you there. A&M is sick and tired of UT and there me, me, me first ice breaker meetings.

Also agree. If the Big 12 falls, it will be because A&M bolted and the SEC was willing to pay for the Houston and Dallas television markets the Aggies would help deliver.

(06-03-2011 07:00 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  The reason Missouri wanted in the Big1o was not because of Texas. It was all about academics and the Big10 money. With academics the primary reason. The Governor even said so.

True. However, I still don't doubt that the old Big Eight schools had a lot of resentment toward Texas. They didn't like that Texas dragged along the other Texas schools. They didn't like that the league's offices were moved to Dallas. Nebraska was angered by the death of the Oklahoma rivalry. Even A&M is tired of being known as Texas' little brother -- twice now they've tried to break away, twice they've been forced to shut up and do as they're told. It's not necessarily money or greed that makes other schools so resentful of Texas. It's the "you'll do it our way or we won't do it at all" attitude that they throw around. They're the 800-pound gorilla, they can do what they want, and they're always looking out for their own best interests. I really can't blame them for it.

I definitely see the Big 12 maintaining the status quo at this point. After all the television contracts have been signed, the new deals are in place, I don't see any movement with the Pac-10, the Big Ten, the Big 12 or the SEC for a long time. The SEC's moves toward A&M were mostly reactionary to the Pac-10's attempt to create the superconference. I don't think the SEC has any great desire to expand at this point in time.

Yea I think the SEC thing was just a "if this league goes bust and all the other big leagues are going to 16 we will offer you a spot". I don't think the SEC wants to expand if they don't have to though.

(06-03-2011 09:55 PM)Sultan of Euphonistan Wrote:  Yea I think the SEC thing was just a "if this league goes bust and all the other big leagues are going to 16 we will offer you a spot". I don't think the SEC wants to expand if they don't have to though.

I am NOT a fan of A&M, but I hope they break away from UT. Man, if A&M join forces with HOUSTON to join the SEC that will be "Fbleep" awesome here in H-Town. My

(06-03-2011 07:18 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  Imho, this change was initiated by Texas and Oklahoma to help prevent Texas A&M from leaving if the SEC again tries to acquire the Aggies this summer after the Texas legislature adjourns this summer. To a lesser extent, this move was to placate Mizzou and Kansas in case the Big East got the word from ESPN that they would pay a lot more money if those two schools were acquired.

I still half expect the SEC to back a large truck load of money into Texas A&M's front yard and say "Howdy, shall I unload this texas size stack of scratch right here?"

FWIW. The last four or five years Missouri has actually benefited from the uneven TV revenue split, they have received more than they would have if it was all split evenly. So this doesn't really immediately help them. Overall though it is a big step in the right direction for the conference and for creating stability.

Missouri's complaint with the Big 12 wasn't with the size of its share of the pie but with the overall size of the pie in general. The Big Ten at that point was paying out significantly more for athletics, getting all of its games televised, and Mizzou's President and the state's Governor really liked the academic side of the conference as well as the opportunity to join the CIC and the boost in research grants $$$$ that could come with it.

This is going back a few years now but here is the payouts from the Big 12 for the 2008-09 school year. It's the most recent I could find online.

1. Oklahoma, $12.2 million
2. Texas, $11.8 million
3. Kansas, $11.5 million
4. Missouri, $10.4 million
5. Texas A&M, $10.2 million
6. Oklahoma State, $10.0 million
7. Colorado, $9.77 million
8. Nebraska, $9.73 million
9. Texas Tech, $9.2 million
10. Baylor, $9.1 million
11. Iowa State, $8.9 million
12. Kansas State, $8.4 million

As you can see Missouri and Kansas weren't doing as bad as some might think. Keep in mind also that the TV revenue that was unequally distributed included hoops not just football. Though obviously football was still the big money maker.

Big 12 2008-09 Revenue Sharing

Looks like the B12 is still trying to sell themselves to the world with lies and exaggerations in public again. Beebe is so two-faced.

Guys, think about this for a second. In the new TV deal with Fox every B12 game played in a B12 venue (with the exception of exactly one home game per school) will now appear either on Tier 1(ABC/ESPN) or Tier 2(Fox). That means every school will have the same exact number of "television appearances" in tier 1 and tier 2 combined.

Now why is all this important? As we obviously know, OU, UT, and A&M will dominate the Tier 1 television appearances. Revenue from Tier 1 is still unequally undivided. That means OU, UT, and A&M are going to share the bulk of Tier 1 revenue because they are going to be dominating Tier 1 broadcasts. What this also means is that the schools less desirable for Tier 1 appearances(ISU, KSU, KU, BU etc.) must have more Tier 2 games on TV since every school will have an equal number of Tier 1 and Tier 2 TV games combined. What this new agreement means is that the big boys will continue to take an uneven amount of revenue. UT will not appear on Fox frequently(ESPN and ABC are taking a huge chunk of their games) but ISU will appear on Fox a lot (ESPN and ABC don't want ISU on TV). But, lo, and behold UT is going to be taking just as much windfall from the the Fox deal as ISU even though ISU is the one going to be making more TV appearances on Fox.


This simply is another bullsh*it PR move by the B12 to make it appear things are "equal". They are not. If the B12 really wanted to make things equal then what they really needed to do was distribute the Fox money based up Fox appearances (just as they do with ESPN). ISU appears on Fox more than Texas so ISU gets more dough than Texas from the Fox deal, right? Nope. That's not happening. The big boys in the B12 are still making out like bandits at everyone's expense.


I smell a PR loving bullsh*tter.....and his name is Dan Beebe. He did the same exact thing with the Tier 2 rights and we he claimed their value "quadrupled"....but failed to mention much of the increase came because the inventory had actually DOUBLED. He knows EXACTLY what he's doing. And what he is doing is exactly the opposite of what he says (or implies) he and the conference are doing.....and it pisses me off. Just tell it like it is, clown. UT is giving it to everyone else in the B12 up the @ss.

It's a real reach to rip Beebe at this point. He helped orchestrate a better deal financially for his conference even after losing two members. How often does a conference make more money via subtraction rather than addition? Hats off to him, regardless of how much he gets criticized.

Seems like people are having a hard time recognizing the fact that the Big 12 didn't fall apart last summer and is well positioned for the future.

(06-04-2011 01:18 AM)x97 Wrote:  Looks like the B12 is still trying to sell themselves to the world with lies and exaggerations in public again. Beebe is so two-faced.

Guys, think about this for a second. In the new TV deal with Fox every B12 game played in a B12 venue (with the exception of exactly one home game per school) will now appear either on Tier 1(ABC/ESPN) or Tier 2(Fox). That means every school will have the same exact number of "television appearances" in tier 1 and tier 2 combined.

Now why is all this important? As we obviously know, OU, UT, and A&M will dominate the Tier 1 television appearances. Revenue from Tier 1 is still unequally undivided. That means OU, UT, and A&M are going to share the bulk of Tier 1 revenue because they are going to be dominating Tier 1 broadcasts. What this also means is that the schools less desirable for Tier 1 appearances(ISU, KSU, KU, BU etc.) must have more Tier 2 games on TV since every school will have an equal number of Tier 1 and Tier 2 TV games combined. What this new agreement means is that the big boys will continue to take an uneven amount of revenue. UT will not appear on Fox frequently(ESPN and ABC are taking a huge chunk of their games) but ISU will appear on Fox a lot (ESPN and ABC don't want ISU on TV). But, lo, and behold UT is going to be taking just as much windfall from the the Fox deal as ISU even though ISU is the one going to be making more TV appearances on Fox.


This simply is another bullsh*it PR move by the B12 to make it appear things are "equal". They are not. If the B12 really wanted to make things equal then what they really needed to do was distribute the Fox money based up Fox appearances (just as they do with ESPN). ISU appears on Fox more than Texas so ISU gets more dough than Texas from the Fox deal, right? Nope. That's not happening. The big boys in the B12 are still making out like bandits at everyone's expense.


I smell a PR loving bullsh*tter.....and his name is Dan Beebe. He did the same exact thing with the Tier 2 rights and we he claimed their value "quadrupled"....but failed to mention much of the increase came because the inventory had actually DOUBLED. He knows EXACTLY what he's doing. And what he is doing is exactly the opposite of what he says (or implies) he and the conference are doing.....and it pisses me off. Just tell it like it is, clown. UT is giving it to everyone else in the B12 up the @ss.

You might want to read several of the recent posts by Tallgrass and others on the Big12.

(06-04-2011 09:50 AM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(06-04-2011 01:18 AM)x97 Wrote:  Looks like the B12 is still trying to sell themselves to the world with lies and exaggerations in public again. Beebe is so two-faced.

Guys, think about this for a second. In the new TV deal with Fox every B12 game played in a B12 venue (with the exception of exactly one home game per school) will now appear either on Tier 1(ABC/ESPN) or Tier 2(Fox). That means every school will have the same exact number of "television appearances" in tier 1 and tier 2 combined.

Now why is all this important? As we obviously know, OU, UT, and A&M will dominate the Tier 1 television appearances. Revenue from Tier 1 is still unequally undivided. That means OU, UT, and A&M are going to share the bulk of Tier 1 revenue because they are going to be dominating Tier 1 broadcasts. What this also means is that the schools less desirable for Tier 1 appearances(ISU, KSU, KU, BU etc.) must have more Tier 2 games on TV since every school will have an equal number of Tier 1 and Tier 2 TV games combined. What this new agreement means is that the big boys will continue to take an uneven amount of revenue. UT will not appear on Fox frequently(ESPN and ABC are taking a huge chunk of their games) but ISU will appear on Fox a lot (ESPN and ABC don't want ISU on TV). But, lo, and behold UT is going to be taking just as much windfall from the the Fox deal as ISU even though ISU is the one going to be making more TV appearances on Fox.


This simply is another bullsh*it PR move by the B12 to make it appear things are "equal". They are not. If the B12 really wanted to make things equal then what they really needed to do was distribute the Fox money based up Fox appearances (just as they do with ESPN). ISU appears on Fox more than Texas so ISU gets more dough than Texas from the Fox deal, right? Nope. That's not happening. The big boys in the B12 are still making out like bandits at everyone's expense.


I smell a PR loving bullsh*tter.....and his name is Dan Beebe. He did the same exact thing with the Tier 2 rights and we he claimed their value "quadrupled"....but failed to mention much of the increase came because the inventory had actually DOUBLED. He knows EXACTLY what he's doing. And what he is doing is exactly the opposite of what he says (or implies) he and the conference are doing.....and it pisses me off. Just tell it like it is, clown. UT is giving it to everyone else in the B12 up the @ss.

You might want to read several of the recent posts by Tallgrass and others on the Big12.

You mean, like the one he posted about an article from a year ago and then tried to pass it off as a current event? Funny.

This whole thing was another PR spin by Beebe. Period. If Beebe really wanted (or in other words had UT and the big boys wanted) truly equal revenue sharing they would have split up that Fox money like they did with the ESPN money. That way the schools with more Fox appearances (ISU anyone?) would receive more Fox revenue. Nope. It's not happening. At least previously you could have argued that the smaller B12 schools really didn't deserve much TV revenue as they had very few games televised by either Fox or ESPN. Now all their games are on TV and UT, OU, and A&M are taking that money too.

LOL. I'm going to start referring to this conference as the Big 3 and the 7 chumps. That's what it's become....and I'm not referring to the on-field performance. I'm referring to the way these others guys bend over and take it.