Good points Bryce. It would be interesting to know the average revenue per seat in the Iowa vs. non iowa non con games. Under the old contract a 2-1 set up would have probably worked, not so with the current set up. What does ISU pay non con schools to come to Ames?
as expected...Downing
- Thread starter MitchL
- Start date
Good points Bryce. It would be interesting to know the average revenue per seat in the Iowa vs. non iowa non con games. Under the old contract a 2-1 set up would have probably worked, not so with the current set up. What does ISU pay non con schools to come to Ames?
Don't even need to know that. They could at the very least get a home and home with any MAC school for example, and then they'd have one more home game in there. It's not as much as many schools but I think ISU makes something like 3-4 million dollars per home game.
The face value ticket for the Iowa game is high, but that creates a mirage on how much they actually make. ISU gives away a LOT of tickets to that game to high school coaches and the like, and usually there are Iowa tickets bundled in with mini-packs and stuff lately.
ISU easily makes more money playing UNI every year at $60 a pop than Iowa every other, especially once you factor in parking and concessions. If you go 2-1 it just makes zero sense.
The face value ticket for the Iowa game is high, but that creates a mirage on how much they actually make. ISU gives away a LOT of tickets to that game to high school coaches and the like, and usually there are Iowa tickets bundled in with mini-packs and stuff lately.
ISU easily makes more money playing UNI every year at $60 a pop than Iowa every other, especially once you factor in parking and concessions. If you go 2-1 it just makes zero sense.
I hate to do this when the thread is actually turning civil.....for the waffle house man...he seems to be link challenged on some posts.....
"Media analysts estimate that Pac-12 Networks are in just 15 million homes while Big Ten and SEC Networks are available in many more households. Due to the distribution, Pac-12 member schools receive $1.5 million per year while the SEC Network pays $7.5 million. The Big Ten Network shells out even more."
"The Pac-12 Network, which was supposed to be netting member schools upward of $5 million per year by now, distributed just around $1.5 million per school, according to a report by Jon Wilner of the San Jose Mercury News." Quoting his favorite San Jose Mercury News, ouch.
"In FY16 — it’s fourth year of existence — the P12Nets reported $128 million in income, a 10 percent year-over-year increase.
The conference doesn’t provide a breakout of expenses; those are wrapped into the the larger expense bucket. Nor does it specify how much of the distributions to the campuses come from the P12Nets.
But multiple sources have pegged that figure in FY16 at approximately $2 million per school.
That’s $24 million, backed out of the $128 million in income … the expense math is pretty clear. The seven-feed entity is costly."
"Barring a major new revenue stream, each Pac-12 school will be $12+ million behind its SEC and Big Ten peers for the final seven years of the conference’s Tier 1 deal, which runs through 2023-24.
The Hotline has addressed this scenario previously. But as each year passes with no Pac-12 revenue game-changers … as Pac-12 Networks distribution continues to lag … as the Big Ten’s new Tier 1 deal draws closer and as the SEC Network continues to mint money … as all those competing dynamics unfold, we get closer to the billion dollar reality.
Seven years of a $12+ million per year deficit for Pac-12 schools equates to an $84 million per school disparity,through the current Tier 1 deal,relative to schools in the SEC and Big Ten.
And $84 million per school for a 12-team conference is a $1 billion deficit."
Keep telling us about the network please......Sorry for the interruption, please return to the sensible posting that has started. I will do my best to stay on task.
Here is the key phrase to all of that "Barring a major new revenue stream, each Pac-12 school will be $12+ million behind its SEC and Big Ten". That is why the league will be forced to enlarge the footprint into Texas, Kansas and Iowa, thereby increasing the footprint by 36 million new customers, also get a channel on Direct TV. Direct was testing channels two years ago for the Pac 12 network and then they just stopped. Look you can think ISU and others are screwed, I believe otherwise, we will find out in 5 to 7 years.
http://www.pacifictakes.com/pac-12-...ors-channel-big-ten-btn-sec-satellite-package
http://www.pacifictakes.com/pac-12-...ors-channel-big-ten-btn-sec-satellite-package
The Pac-12 network has been a disaster. We're speculating on a media environment that could be completely different in 5-7 years.
The cable model crashing would be good for ISU, because they do have a top 50 fanbase, and one that is willing to pay to watch their team play. If everything goes to a streaming or pay to watch system, a team like ISU likely becomes more attractive than they would be in the cable model. That's why it's just pointless to get too into haggling over the Pac-12 network - it just might not matter at all.
The cable model crashing would be good for ISU, because they do have a top 50 fanbase, and one that is willing to pay to watch their team play. If everything goes to a streaming or pay to watch system, a team like ISU likely becomes more attractive than they would be in the cable model. That's why it's just pointless to get too into haggling over the Pac-12 network - it just might not matter at all.
Please share where someone (other than you) thinks they will get 36 million new customers by going into Texas, Kansas and Iowa.
This is getting old, neither of us is going to change the opinion of the other, we will both have to wait, for the next 7 years or so to see which side is right. Good day.
The interesting part is one of us (me) has the statistics to support their point of view. One of us (me) has been consistent in their approach to the conversation. The other has been Waffle House and will need to wait to see if their wildly inaccurate comments come true in the next 7 years.
I do appreciate your giving up when your ignorance was shown.
Last edited:
What statistics have you shown? As I said above, its all opinion, BTN took Maryland and Rutgers for the TV audience, so that shows its not just winning football games.. Your side says the Pac 12 will not take teams in the Midwest, but 6 years ago it looked like a certainty that 5 teams from the big 12 were going to go to the Pac 12, now that league would not even look? Your response will be it was Texas and Oklahoma, not ISU and K St., I get that, but there is no way that Oklahoma goes anywhere with the Longhorns now. The PAC 12 will make money, and by expanding into Texas, Iowa and Kansas it will make more. Maybe its Texas, TT, K St. and ISU.
Good point, but when the Iowa-ISU series restarted in 1977, the first 4 were in Iowa City. Yes, that was a long time ago in a different TV landscape.
But I'd suggest doing a home and home with Akron...yes, Akron (stadium capacity 27,000) is effectively the same financially as doing a 2 for 1 with a big program. Playing AT Akron is giving up a payday. Might as well play at Iowa 2 for 1, at least you get a payday.
(and thanks for being a reasonable clone poster, you give us all hope.... kinda)
You keep bringing in the BTN as the model, the statistics(the numbers that support a position) show that the PAC 12 Network isn't able to extort money like the BTN. Your premise that all subscribers will pay in the added footprint isn't supported. The current numbers show that. That's what those pesky facts show.
Side note, I have not mentioned Maryland, Rutgers or the quality of the ISU program in our discussion. I realize you are out of ammunition in this discussion and you have been debunked, do yourself a favor and quit doubling down. It doesn't reflect well on the good ISU posters.
I disagree still though - IMO the first 2 or 3 games of the season sell themselves for ISU. They're gonna sell 55k+ tickets regardless of opponent because the weather is nice and we're not totally sure if we suck yet.
ISU doesn't make enough money I don't think to do many G5 buy games. Those run over a million dollars now plus travel expenses for the other team. There is just no way it makes any financial sense to do a 2 for 1 in any circumstance.
OK, makes sense.
So how does it make sense to play a home and home with Akron? That's giving up one of the three games you talk about...without the payday of going to Iowa City AND a much higher travel cost.
Give the pac 12 network some time, its been around 4 years, BTN has been around for 10. I can remember all the bitching the first few years about games not on some cable stations when BTN formed. The PAC 12 is still young and can grow out of it. To say it a failure after four years is crazy, but they do need to get a contact worked out with Direct TV.
As for doubling down, since I made my OP, people have been saying why it would not work, I just do not agree. This idea that ISU bring nothing to a conference is routed in the minds of Iowa fans, that is ok, but its the college presidents that will be making this decision. I mean this morning I was listening to an ESPN writer, and he thought Oklahoma would end up in the SEC, never mentioned the Big 10 as the sure thing, many on here believe. Right now its look at the evidence and make a prediction, nothing more, and we will not know who is right for 5 to 7 years.
Sigh, pretty quiet Thursday night and I'm waiting for the grill to warm up, so I'll get sucked back in. I think his biggest disconnect is exactly the bolded above. That and he can't distinguish between the PAC 12 Network payouts and the combined PAC 12 conference payouts from all sources.
He keeps bringing up BTN as his starting point, but doesn't understand that the BTN is on the basic tier on all major carriers and even most local telecoms within the conference footprint.
If the PAC 12 had the same setup, they would be far and away killing it with a $60 million payout from the conference network outside of the $20-whatever million payout from ESPN/Fox. (60 mil subscribers x $12 year ÷ 12). Alas, (and this is for you st. Cards) the conference owned TV network, not including ESPN or Fox, pays out $1.5 million annually. (Meaning in all, they have the same number of subscribers in their 60 million subscriber footprint as the state of Iowa. So the number of subscribers Iowa would bring is moot.
I'm sure the amoeba will ask for or give unrelated information to these points, or pound home that the PAC 12 Network distributed $28.7 million last year.
Jeepers - will someone tell me how many Power 5 home and homes ISU has had in the last 15 years besides Iowa. I get Bryce saying they want none of it to get wins for a bowl and maybe the ticket sales will be OK because the weather will be good. But do ISU fans not get it why the game is horrible for Iowa? Iowa, not ISU, can get a Power 5 team to play. And when Iowa wins by 40 against ISU we drop in the rankings. Will anyone please explain how this game helps Iowa? Seriously. We won by less against a MAC team last year and went up in the rankings. Then we win by 40 against a Big 12 team and drop. WTF. Only 1 team wants their Super Bowl. It not only makes ISU relevant for a period of time but also CF and Williams to exist. If Iowa dropped ISU they are dead. Jesus. Right now CF has over 15k posts on Iowa recruiting and Big 10 basketball. And less than 2k posts on ISU football and basketball recruiting combined. That is so sad.
How long did it take BTN to get on basic cable? I do not care to look that up, but they fought tooth and nail for it to happen. What is to say that the Pac 12 will not also end up there? They need to get on Direct TV, adding a larger footprint would help that. My point from the start of this is that going after Boise or BYU does not do that.
Jesus Cards again with dumb, irrelevant stats. Dude go back to what you said earlier. You are off until ISU is finding a new conference. It now you are back. I will say good luck with you f-in home and home with Akron. Unreal. 55 and married and live on an Iowa board. Wow. Really pathetic life. Oh, Cards when I post over 100 times in a week on a rival board let me know. So sad.
Really your first point is silly, why does it matter? How many has Baylor had over that time period? You keep bring up Iowa destroyed ISU and dropped, but they also rose in the AP poll, why not mentioned that? Really, why do you hate this game so much and ISU in general? IF you look for the negative in anything, you can find it, its easy to do. ISU brings nothing to a P5 conference, that is completely silly, when compared to a Texas or Oklahoma yes, but those schools can go to any conference and will if they chose. Its the other 7 spots is that ISU is trying to get. Hell, Iowa does not look very good compared against Ohio ST or Michigan either. This game helps Iowa because its an instate game, and is a game Iowa can say they played and beat another P5 school. Plus expenses are nothing, both schools bus to the game, and stay at hotels on Friday night, both home and away. Its also a guaranteed sellout that you can charge premium dollars for.
I'll grant you that it wasn't immediately, but I'm fairly certain by the end of the 2nd year, they had all national carriers on board.
Maybe they'll reach that point someday. I don't have a breakdown of which carriers have it, but after 4 years, they only have 1.5 million subscribers (I understand that's over simplifying at the $1/subscriber and not including sports pack subscribers), I'm just not sure the demand is there.
After 4 years, the PAC 12 Network has revenue of $18 million. In comparison, BTN after 4 years had $242 million in revenue. (https://www.google.com/amp/www.stlt...e05a998c-a390-11e1-99b2-001a4bcf6878.amp.html)
The obvious answer is that the BTN had more subscribers, but I'll leave it up to you as to why.
Hey, you are a lawyer, or say your are, go chase an ambulance and let it go. This is a FREE board, it does not say ONLY for Iowa fans, OK. If you do not like my posts, then don't read them. I am sure you had a lecture over free speech, use what you were taught.
They have more subs. because they have more cable companies and are on direct TV. Unless you think the fans in the Midwest care more about college sports, they may. BTN is a cash cow, so is the SEC network, will the Pac 12 network be, don't know, but would it not be more valuable increasing the footprint into Texas, Kansas and Iowa? That has been my point from day one, taking schools already being served does not increase the footprint, moving into the Midwest does. That is why adding K St. ISU and a Texas school is important. Its been my point along. The Pac 12 will not make the money adding BYU, N. Col. or other teams like that. Think outside the box, and look at the big picture, that is what the big 10 has done, the move into the east coast was a genius idea, Rutgers and Maryland may never win a football title, but they were broke and everyone benefits from the marriage, why would the three big 12 schools be any different.
Last edited:
I don't have the exact number, but I'd guess the Big Ten and PAC 12 conference footprints have roughly the same number of subscribers give or take a few million. That may seem like a lot until you figure out there is a $21.1 million annual payout disparity (per school). So yes, I'd say the Midwest cares a hell of a lot more about college sports.
I believe the SEC Network paid around $7.5 million per school last year. Doesn't exactly scream cash cow, unless we're comparing it to the PAC 12 and Big 12 networks combined. (Yes, I understand there is no such thing, because your conference sold out to Texas)
The biggest problem I have with your argument is what motivation would TTU have to hitch their wagon to ISU? Or KSU for that matter. You say if all 3 went to the PAC 12, they'd add 32 million subscribers. Iowa has 1.5 million, and apparently Kansas has even less. So that means Texas is going to carry just short of 30 million. What motivation do they have to drag the other 2 schools along?
I was talking population not subscribers, the motivation is two fold, grow the footprint, and also bring in two large public schools. If they are going to send teams to TT or Texas, why not Manhattan and Ames? 1.5 million does not sound like a lot, but is more than in Idaho, Nevada or New Mexico. This will be a money grab like most things are. Not as much as Rutgers or Maryland, but schools like that will be gone, they will take what they can get.
Tech will try to stay connected to Texas, but if Texas goes to the ACC, then they will not want to get left out. The SEC has Texas A & M, they do not need another Texas team, the Big 10 would never take them, their only chance to stay on the gravy train is the Pac 12. They could use their limited political pressure to take Texas to the Pac 12, but that would not effect ISU and K St, it might make it easier. Houston was left behind when the SWC merged with the Big 12, has anything changed, no, TCU and Baylor are small religious schools, with a limited fan base, and from the past the Pac 12 passed before on BYU, why would that change?
Look at Missouri, they wanted to join the Big 10, they saw that 5 teams might go to the Pac 12, when the Big 10 took Nebraska, they took the lifeline from the SEC. Why did they not stay, because more money, but also they were afraid of getting left out if the Big 12 collapsed. TT will be in the same boat, the money difference between what they now receive or what the Pac 12 pays out compared to the AAC or the MW is like 30 million dollars a year difference. That is why they will go.
Last edited:
Soooooo, I suppose we're done talking abouut that Downing kid and are stuck in ISU drivel again?
They dropped one of the other travel games they were signed up for to get it, I think they wanted to travel there because of Campbell's ties to the area and his desire to recruit Ohio.
For the record ISU gets nothing for going to Iowa City, home teams keep all of the gate now.
What does ISU get $ wise for a trip to Akron? How does it balance against expenses for the trip? How much of a recruiting bounce do they get going to Akron?
Regarding ISU to the Pac-12 and why I don't think it makes sense:
ISU is not a revenue generating program for conferences. In fact, I read an article a few years ago that there are very few programs that are actually revenue generating for a conference and a few schools like Texas, Ohio State, Michigan, etc. are the revenue drivers for conferences.
IMO this is why ISU needs the cable model to continue to decline because the more it does the more valuable ISU becomes as an asset to a conference. The current way it's set up makes Rutgers valuable, despite the fact that nobody really cares or watches the team. I believe that there is a much larger portion of ISU fans that would purchase a streaming or a la carte conference network.
ISU's attraction will depend very much on where we are in 5-6 years from a media consumption position. If that becomes more valuable, they could have appeal. If not, the 3 million people in Iowa have very little appeal to a traditional TV/Cable revenue model.
ISU is not a revenue generating program for conferences. In fact, I read an article a few years ago that there are very few programs that are actually revenue generating for a conference and a few schools like Texas, Ohio State, Michigan, etc. are the revenue drivers for conferences.
IMO this is why ISU needs the cable model to continue to decline because the more it does the more valuable ISU becomes as an asset to a conference. The current way it's set up makes Rutgers valuable, despite the fact that nobody really cares or watches the team. I believe that there is a much larger portion of ISU fans that would purchase a streaming or a la carte conference network.
ISU's attraction will depend very much on where we are in 5-6 years from a media consumption position. If that becomes more valuable, they could have appeal. If not, the 3 million people in Iowa have very little appeal to a traditional TV/Cable revenue model.
I don't know the answer to those questions, only that it is the stated reason for scheduling it. I assume the coaching staff knows a lot more about that than I do.
I appreciate it, I didn't know if the details had been shared on a Cyclone sight. I don't go there very often so I was just curious. I am sure there are bean counters that drive these things.
There's no defense any Iowa fan can use regarding Ferentz's record versus ISU. Admittedly, it embarrassing.
However, you as a Clone fan, have no defense against the "ISU is one of the worst football programs in the country historically and recently.".
The history of your program, how bad its been, far more encompasses your record versus Iowa in the past 18 years.
I can appreciate a lot of what is said here (and not just because you said ISU to the PAC 12 doesn't make sense).
You may be onto something with ISU fans being willing to pay for streams. Do you know off hand what the subscriber numbers for cyclones.tv look like year over year?
Another thing I've been wondering about is if BTN/ESPN etc make the same amount per subscriber with PlayStation Vue, Sling or DirecTVs new streaming service as they do with a traditional cable or satellite carrier. If so, that may keep the current model viable into the future, but on a more limited scale.
I'd have to think not though. I pay $35/m for PlayStation Vue and get 70ish channels. Using the traditional model, BTN and ESPN would soak up almost 25% of that in 5 channels, and a similar cable or satellite package is upwards of 75-100 after promotions end.
You could be right that the "derby days" of athletic programs nearing and eclipsing $30 million each year could all be coming to an end and none of the 98 paragraphs I've typed in this thread will matter.
I think we've reached the halcyon days of TV revenue. That said I'd be shocked if anybody knows what it's going to look like in 10 years. I'd sign up for a ~$25 sports streaming pack and roll with Netflix in a heartbeat.
Also, the ACC and Pac-12 are IMO the ones most likely to have revenue problems in the future. The ACC is already distributing the least amount of any Power 5 league and their 3rd tier rights are locked up until 2036. The Pac-12, despite the population centers in their footprint, just can't get the 3rd tier conf network going. They make about as much on it as ISU does on Cyclones.tv, which is really telling. What the total # of subscribers is on that I'm not sure.
Also, the ACC and Pac-12 are IMO the ones most likely to have revenue problems in the future. The ACC is already distributing the least amount of any Power 5 league and their 3rd tier rights are locked up until 2036. The Pac-12, despite the population centers in their footprint, just can't get the 3rd tier conf network going. They make about as much on it as ISU does on Cyclones.tv, which is really telling. What the total # of subscribers is on that I'm not sure.
Similar threads
