Utes subcitizen member of the PAC12

http://espn.go.com/blog/ncfnation/post/_/id/23327/utah-wont-immediately-see-a-windfall



http://espn.go.com/blog/ncfnation/post/_/id/23317/utah-and-colorado-dont-enter-as-equals



"Utah will only get a portion of the revenue sharing for the first three years." I less politically correct way of saying it is that Utah is the Pac12's bi#@*.

jonnylingo wrote:
http://espn.go.com/blog/ncfnation/post/_/id/23327/utah-wont-immediately-see-a-windfall



http://espn.go.com/blog/ncfnation/post/_/id/23317/utah-and-colorado-dont-enter-as-equals



"Utah will only get a portion of the revenue sharing for the first three years." I less politically correct way of saying it is that Utah is the Pac12's bi#@*.

Yeah, well, if we get that Big 12 invite, I would suspect we'd get a similar offer, and even when we fully vest, not get the same share that Texas, OU and A&M would. And that is just the way it goes when you have less leverage.

This was Utah's way of getting an invite. They don't bring in as much revenue as their fans may like to believe. So Utah is saying, we want in so badly we're willing to take a smaller share.

I wonder if that smaller share is more than what they're presently getting in the MWC?

I think part of this might reflect the PAC-10 buying Utah out of its contract with the MTN. I bet the PAC-10 is buying out that contract up front and in exchange Utah is getting a smaller share for the first little bit.

The answer about whether or not the smaller share is bigger than what they get from the MWC is yes.



Also, since they are going before the TV contract is negotiated there isn't as much money to split.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

Lawboy wrote:
Yeah, well, if we get that Big 12 invite, I would suspect we'd get a similar offer, and even when we fully vest, not get the same share that Texas, OU and A&M would. And that is just the way it goes when you have less leverage.

The share is based on each teams' national televison coverage. The projections that you're hearing about Texas, OU and A&M are exactly that, projections. It's not necessarily guaranteed, as has been implied. The $17 to $20 million dollar projection for TX and OU is soley a projection based on those teams' current coverage. In other words, TX, OU and A&M will receive that much if they maintain their current status quo in regards to televison coverage or exposure. Below is an explanation, from espn.com, as to how the revenue is divided.

Big 12 schools share half of their television revenue, with the other portion set aside. That money is then distributed -- with the schools that play in more televised men's basketball and football games, receiving a greater share of the pot...



During the 2007 season, each Big 12 school received approximately $1.5 million from a common pool from its football television appearances. The Omaha World-Herald reported that for games on ABC, the participating school received $260,000 for a league game and $520,000 for a nonconference game. For FSN and ESPN games, the figures were $150,000 and $300,000. And for games on Versus, the sum was $50,000.



Schools like Texas and Oklahoma, which have the majority of their games on television, receive bigger television checks than schools like Baylor and Iowa State, which are rarely televised.http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=3409420

If we joined the Big 12, our revenue would be based solely on how many games we had televised and by whom. According to all reports, this model will not change. Instead, all the schools will be receiving more money even though NU an CU are leaving, because the networks promised not to change the total annual revenue, which equals $130-140 million. Therefore, the figures above, for each game and network, will actually increase. Take a look at the Big 12 revenue distribution for 2008-09.

1. Oklahoma, $12,209,800

2. Texas, $11,783,807

3. Kansas, $11,494,441

4. Missouri, $10,449,437

5. Texas A&M, $10,180,582

6. Oklahoma State, $10,026,603

7. Colorado, $9,767,426

8. Nebraska, $9,728,502

9. Texas Tech, $9,195,931

10. Baylor, $9,068,351

11. Iowa State, $8,913,045

12. Kansas State, $8,374,959 http://newsok.com/article/3469078#ixzz0rMlyq4nx

If you notice, Kansas' revenue for that year was based not only on the fact that they had a decent football season, but their basketball coverage as well. The difference between Kansas and Texas was less than 300K.



Perhaps my blue colored glasses deceive me, but I believe that if we were part of the Big 12, and based on how I believe we could fair in both basketball and football (if we were in the north division), we would find ourselves somewhere around the Missouri and Oklahoma State range. Personally, I don't see us finishing any lower than 7th on the above list.



Depending on one's interpretation of what is considered a large discrepency in revenue, I personally don't see the discrepency between 1 and 12 as being all that huge. At least not as huge as what some media outlets have suggested.



Our payout would ultimately depend on our success on the football field, as well as the basketball court. Hypothetically speaking, if we won the Big 12, or even went to the Big 12 championship game on a consistent basis, we could potentially earn as much as Texas and OU. That is If they maintain their winning ways.



I thought some of you might find this interesting.