Iowa is in the top half of conf in revenue and borderline top 1/3 and you compare them to moochers?
Again, that's idiotic.
Then you say rutgers brings more to the table, time to stop replying to you lmfao! Wow lol
Read up U of I Athletics The Fight is on
- Thread starter Peckerboy
- Start date
Again, that's idiotic.
Then you say rutgers brings more to the table, time to stop replying to you lmfao! Wow lol
Dude. Can you read?
My post is about television revenue. IIRC, every cable/satellite subscription in the B1G footprint brings $.60/month ($7.20/year) to BTN. New Jersey alone has more than 2.5M cable subscribers. That doesn't even factor in adding television sets in New York City area. By my count, 2.5M subscribers at $7.20 per year adds $18,000,000 to the B1G's coffers. Iowa had, as of 2017, 443,000 cable subscribers. That equates to $3,189,600 to the B1G's coffers.
Is Iowa a better football program than Rutgers? Absolutely. No doubt about it. But that's not the issue.
Why do you think that the Pac 12 wanted Colorado and Utah instead of Oklahoma and Oklahoma State? Why would that Pac 12 only take Oklahoma if it could convince Texas to come along? Money. Population. TV sets/cable/satellite subscriptions.
The B1G is an attractive TV commodity because of many factors and I'll readily concede that history and tradition plays a role. But the B1G generates huge TV revenues because of its vast network. Rutgers has one of the largest alumni networks in the country (certainly top 10). It has at least 250,000 of its alumni living and working in the NJ - many who work in NYC. Adding Rutgers to the conference was a massive cash grab.
Your reliance on revenues generated by the University of Iowa Athletics is off the mark. I've focused solely on revenues that are split equally among the members. You're relying upon a number that includes ticket sales, donor contributions and local media revenues - none of which are shared.
ESPN, Fox and any other television network aren't crawling all over themselves to be able to show games to the approximately 450,000 Iowa television sets. They're salivating over the number of television sets in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, Michigan and Ohio. And, make no mistake, Iowa is benefitting massively from what the schools in those areas add to the B1G's coffers.
There's a reason why Iowa State was concerned when the Big 12 was looking like it would implode. It is simply not an attractive "commodity" from a television revenue standpoint - which was the largest driving factor for conference re-alignment. If, for some reason (purely hypothetical), the B1G were to implode, Iowa would be in the same position. Among B1G schools looking for a new conference, Iowa would be close to the bottom of the barrel as far as being an attractive revenue target. With the exception of Nebraska, every other B1G team brings more to a conference's revenue coffers than Iowa does.
Iowa is a small market program in the most powerful athletic conference in the country. For Hawkeye fans, we should be eternally grateful that the B1G follows the NFL model instead of the MLB model. And while it would be wholly incorrect to conclude that Iowa doesn't contribute anything to the B1G's revenue sharing coffers (it most certainly contributes), there can be no mistake that Iowa is riding the coattails of the schools in the larger market populations.
Excellent. They have less than 1/2 of one year's budget for the sports that were cut. I'm all for it if they can find a way, but the Athletic Department has to find a way to make payments on a loan that will be approaching $70 mil. $1.9 is the proverbial drop in the bucket.
I wish them luck though. If they can completely fund themselves, why not let 'em compete? They need to be honest though, it will take long term commitments, not just a couple million this year.
I wish them luck though. If they can completely fund themselves, why not let 'em compete? They need to be honest though, it will take long term commitments, not just a couple million this year.
Suterman, she was a great interview. I can see why the regents, Barta and Herrald don't want to have a discussion with her. Did you find out anymore about how Texas is doing that? Their athletic department only seems to sponsor 15 sports and with their revenue that seems odd.
I believe they have 22 sports. If as you say they only fund 15 of them, that leaves the other 7 privately funded. We will be talking to her again soon and I will ask very specifically what UT's funding model looks like.
I will be interested to see how they privately fund them. I just looked at their athletic website, they had 16 sports listed but one was ‘Texas Relays’
I live i Iowa but still get sec network and acc network etc. Why the hell should we assume the east wouldn't get btn if we didn't have rutgers?
I still get all games on tv for all conferences.
Do you actually think that is free to me because they don't have Iowa teams? Lol
Last edited:
No my numbers show how many people give a crap about a team and therefore spend money on it.
But you keep thinking espn will salivate over showing the md vs ru football game over the Iowa Wisconsin game. Lmfao once again.
So why don't they get uconn fau and some bs texas school....theres a lot more tv sets! Why would you wantschools like Iowa or wisconsin!
You're kidding yourself if you think nw pu in etc have more valuable football programs than Iowa.
Btw the b1g was happy to add Nebraska and their small populated state...
So again, wtf you smoking lol
Last edited:
It's about the level of compensation not just whether the channel is accessible.
I think you are both greatly undervaluing the b1g with or without rutgers.
Please tell me the added value rutgers brings to that price then....
You think cable companies are morons and think rutgers magically makes people, that don't care about rutgers football, decide to watch more b1g than usual?
Penn State, Rutgers and Maryland are all highly regarded and ranked research universities with great traditions and large alumni membership.
Nebraska is the outlier in the Big Ten academically, but not athletically.
Nebraska is the outlier in the Big Ten academically, but not athletically.
The numbers speak for themselves. Look at B1G television revenue before addition of Rutgers and Maryland and compare with B1G television revenue after their addition.
You also don’t seem to remember the fight between BTN and the cable companies at the time BTN launched. Cable companies wanted BTN as a premium channel which would force consumers who truly wanted the channel to pay extra for it. BTN insisted upon being part of base package. That way, the BTN would receive monthly compensation from every single cable/satellite subscriber for those in B1G footprint even if those subscribers don’t ever tune in. Approximately 2.5M cable subscribers in NJ alone contributing approximately $7/year to B1G’s coffers.
Rutgers and Maryland are flipping cash cows from a population base/television households base.
You apparently think that Jim Delaney was a moron and adding Maryland and Rutgers was a financial detriment to the B1G. So, Mr. Smart Guy, tell me why Delaney added the two schools and why B1G revenues have skyrocketed since they were added.
Yup. It’s why pay-per-view sports equals less money.
BTN is making millions per school from people that wouldn’t pay for it if they had a choice.
Why did the PAC-12 take Colorado and Utah instead of OU and OSU?
Because of Colorado and Utah’s vastly more valuable football programs?
Nope. Because the Pac12 network could add Salt Lake City, Provo and Denver to footprint. Vastly more valuable than Oklahoma City.
Just look at the Nielsen ratings as far as size of television markets are concerned and value of advertising that can be generated in those markets. No brainer to add Colorado and Utah instead of OU (perennial CFP playoff contender) and OSU.
As for whether Iowa is more valuable to the B1G than Northwestern or Purdue, I’ll just write this: the B1G could drop MSU, Northwestern, Purdue and Iowa (or Nebraska) and it would see very little drop in its television contract revenues that are shared among member schools and they’d be splitting revenues 10 ways instead of 14 ways. It would only lose Iowa (or Nebraska) in its footprint. Massive television audience would remain ....
Another person who understands the business model.
I don't know why you would assume anything when we have actual facts to examine. https://www.inquirer.com/philly/bus...s-espn-cutting-viewership-south-20180417.html
A quote from the story: "Despite its name, the Big Ten Conference has expanded beyond just 10 universities and colleges as it sought to build a television network."
They wanted Texas. They also wanted Notre Dame's national appeal. Big 12 appeared to be imploding. Texas was a natural target. Notre Dame isn't affiliated with a conference. Another natural target. If Pac-12 was imploding, B1G may have considered it but two hour time difference and length of travel may have been huge factors militating against it. Easier to expand to the east and grab those populations - particularly since the Big East and ACC was vulnerable.
U of I has $1.5B endowment, yet can't keep the swimming programs.
U of I knows it's BS.
The alums know it's BS.
The alums know that the U of I knows it's BS.
The U of I knows that the alums know that the U of I knows it's BS.
U of I knows it's BS.
The alums know it's BS.
The alums know that the U of I knows it's BS.
The U of I knows that the alums know that the U of I knows it's BS.
Alabama has 829,000+ cable subscribing households.
Iowa has 466,000+ cable subscribing households.
Nebraska has 343,000+ cable subscribing households.
Thus, Alabama has more cable subscribers than Iowa and Nebraska combined.
For the 2018 fiscal year, the SEC reported total revenue of $627 million, with each of the conference's 14 schools receiving a payout of $43.1 million. The new ESPN/ABC TV contract could increase the annual payout for each school by nearly $20 million per year, according to the SBJ report.
It's because college football continues to become bigger and bigger business.
Do you really think football income was the main reason we added rutgers? Haha
Why would we want notre dame? We already have indiana tv sets, that's all that matters
. Ok isn't very valuable? Espn seems to think you're full of crap
Let me guess rutgers is probably a better addition to a conference than clemson or alabama, from a football standpoint, right?
According to Dodd, both Texas and Oklahoma -- the Big 12's most valued properties -- were close to leaving in 2010 and 2011. Ultimately, the Pac-10 would not allow Texas to move the Longhorn Network west. The rightsholders -- ESPN and Fox -- also promised the Big 12 the same money for 10 teams as they were paying for 12. That hammered home the point that any conference with Texas and Oklahoma in it was worth saving. That's basically why the Big 12 still exists today, surviving through two rounds of conference realignment earlier this decade.
For the 2018 fiscal year, the SEC reported total revenue of $627 million, with each of the conference's 14 schools receiving a payout of $43.1 million. The new ESPN/ABC TV contract could increase the annual payout for each school by nearly $20 million per year, according to the SBJ report.
It's because college football continues to become bigger and bigger business.
Do you really think football income was the main reason we added rutgers? Haha
SEC's revenue increases didn't have anything to do with Texas A&M and Missouri joining the conference? Added those schools because of their long, rich football traditions?
As for your question pertaining to why the B1G added Rutgers, the driving force was absolutely the NJ/NY market and the amount of revenue that would be generated by adding them to the conference. Adding NJ to the B1G footprint made the conference television package far more valuable.
You think that the B1G added Rutgers because of it was the birthplace of football? Because of its heralded football traditions and success?
Sure that helped, but it's hardly the only reason for the increase. Sports continue to make more and more money. Look at how pro sports franchise values have exploded. Can you sent that sports are simply generating more than ever?
As for the big 10, for some reason I thought they were in more than just the football business
Why would we want notre dame? We already have indiana tv sets, that's all that matters
Ok isn't very valuable? Espn seems to think you're full of crap
Let me guess rutgers is probably a better addition to a conference than clemson or alabama, from a football standpoint, right?
According to Dodd, both Texas and Oklahoma -- the Big 12's most valued properties -- were close to leaving in 2010 and 2011. Ultimately, the Pac-10 would not allow Texas to move the Longhorn Network west. The rightsholders -- ESPN and Fox -- also promised the Big 12 the same money for 10 teams as they were paying for 12. That hammered home the point that any conference with Texas and Oklahoma in it was worth saving. That's basically why the Big 12 still exists today, surviving through two rounds of conference realignment earlier this decade.
So answer the question. When Oklahoma wanted to leave the Big 12, why didn't the Pac-12 want a team that has history, tradition and an outstanding football program. Why was bringing on OU tied to bring Texas into the mix?
If OU was such a valuable commodity, wouldn't the Pac-12 have been salivating to add OU?
You've also seem to have lost sight of the ultimate issue. Each conference has teams that possess national appeal. I've known the Iowa Fight Song since age 3, earned two degrees from the U of Iowa and an am unabashed "cheerleader" when it comes to those considering attending the university. However, my "black and gold" blinders are not so thick so as to believe that Iowa is driving the B1G television revenues that are shared with the other members. Second or third smallest student population in the B1G in a small population state. Alumni network nowhere close to what Michigan, Ohio State, Minnesota, Rutgers, Illinois, Penn State and Purdue brings to the table.
I'd bet you very good money that, if Minnesota was playing at Iowa at the same time that Maryland was playing at Maryland, Kinnick would be sold out and ticket sales would average at least $60/ticket. Rutgers may have only 20,000 to 25,000 in the stands and the ticket price may be only $30/ticket. That's great for the "value" of Iowa football vis-a-vis Rutgers football but, make no mistake, Iowa ticket revenue isn't shared with the other B1G teams. In contrast, the number of television sets tuned into the Rutgers/Maryland game would be more - probably by a significant number. And that isn't a swipe against Iowa. It simply reflects reality. And, based upon my understanding of how advertising revenues are generated, the number of eyeballs and the number of television sets are massively important.
Sure that helped, but it's hardly the only reason for the increase. Sports continue to make more and more money. Look at how pro sports franchise values have exploded. Can you sent that sports are simply generating more than ever?
As for the big 10, for some reason I thought they were in more than just the football business
They are in more than just the football business but you were the one referring to other Iowa sports as "moochers" and the point is simple. Small student population, small alumni base, small state population Iowa is "taking" more from the B1G's shared television coffers than it is putting in. Thus, by your definition, Iowa would be a "moocher" from what the other schools are contributing to the shared revenue stream.
Uh, you mean like everyone should have already known? Why did they think Heller, brands, and others bust their asses to fundraise?
If there’s one thing we need at iowa, it’s more rich white kids playing country club sports and getting college paid for.
Are we losing that revenue for every year going forward? Revenue should be as high or higher next year and going forward.
Heck they should be letting at least 10k into the football games. Yes, I know 10k fans is a drop in the bucket compared to 69k.
