CougarCorner
Sign in
Archived Topic

Texas Tech Football Coach Blasts Big XII

by Mars · 6/30/2010

Sponsored Advertisementad content
M
MTM
Mars wrote:


MTM has trolled hard on other boards in the past, but I've fine with him as long as he's on good behavior here.



As for what the thread was actually about, which has nothing to do with Utah, here is Orangebloods' take: http://texas.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1099384


Yeah, sorry for the threadjack.

I thought a troll was "someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community with the primary intent of provoking other users into a desired emotional response". I don't feel I've done that here or on CougarBlue. I've disagreed with some statements and I've tried to support it with my own point of view but I don't think I've ever stuck the knife in and twisted it.



Anyway, carry on.



I agree with Tuberville. I think the Big 12 is in trouble going forward unless they expand to 12 and share revenue more evenly. Expansion-maybe. Getting TX to share-tough nut to crack.
C
CougarClaw
gmj81 wrote:
Is it not a little ironic to anyone else that Tuberville is speaking of the unbalance of wealth distribution within the Big XII but makes no qualms whatsoever about the unbalance between the AQ and the non-AQ leagues? Talk about hypocrisy. The earnings gap between UT and Tech is much smaller than the earnings gap between Tech and BYU and BYU is arguably a better program than Tech.



I hope Tech chokes on this hire and falls back into irrelevance...


well-said. We might as well be dealing with Mary Antoinette back-handing us across the face with a generic "let them eat cake" since our bread is all gone.



And just because it's funny and related, I'll take a page out of Urroner's book and quote myself from the latest installment of THIS JUST IN:


CougarClaw wrote:

Texas Tech coach questions Big 12 longevity given brazen compensation disparity among the conference schools. All 60+ non-AQ schools in the nation send sympathy cards to the suffering program.


http://cougarcorner.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3603
B
BYUgrad03
Some of you will likely disagree with the article below based on recent threads that I've participated in, but the guy argues that BYU should get more because it has been the main support to the MWC family.



http://bleacherreport.com/articles/411530-mountain-west-conference-if-byu-is-staying-it-shoud-get-more-money



Whether you agree with unequal distibution or not, is not my focus. If the orangebloods.com article posted by Mars is correct, and Tech is receiving roughly $14-17 million in TV revenue in the updated Big 12(10), which will be roughly twice as much as they are receiving now, what do they possibly have to complain about?



According to the article above, coupled with the orangebloods article, they're receiving more than 10 times what they would be if they were in a conference like the MWC or WAC. Which is exactly where they would be if Texas, A&M and OU didn't allow them to tag along. The only reason Tech would've gotten the invite to the Pac-10 was to intice Texas and Co. to follow by helping to alleviate any potential issues with the Texas legislature.



Tech doesn't realize how good they have it. I grew up an hour south of Lubbock, and that area is not very appealing to say the least, which hinders recruiting. (Sorry if that offends any fellow West Texans on here, but it's the truth.) The only reason Tech gets the recruits it does, and has the relevance it has, is because of the conference that they're affilated with, and that conference's relevance is based soley on Texas' and OU's title runs over the past decade.



Like what gmj81 wrote, is Tech really better than BYU? Is Baylor, Iowa St., or K-State? Yet, they're going to get $14-17 million a year in TV revenue as compared to our maybe $1 million? Yet we have a bigger fan base, overall better athletic facilties, and arguably a better overall athletics program.



Also, on the competition side of this, if Tech wins its conference, it goes to a BCS game, maybe even the BCS championship game . If we win our conference, we get the Las Vegas Bowl. If we go undefeated, then we "may" get a BCS game, if we're lucky.



If Tech doesn't like their situation, then I say move aside, we'll take it.
Sponsored Advertisementad content
Y
Y 4 Ever
Mars wrote:


Kansas State thinks the Big XII needs a "north division" to give schools not named Texas or Oklahoma a jumping-off platform: http://newsok.com/kansas-states-bill-snyder-prefers-five-team-divisions-big-12-title-game/article/3469989?custom_click=lead_story_title


I'm sick and tired of hearing about the big 12 petitioning the NCAA to allow it to hold a championship game with only 10 teams, and then acting like it actually has a chance in :utard: (aka hell) of happening.



The Pac 10 and Big Ten have BOTH tried to do this, and been shut down, which resulted in them each going to 12 teams, in large part because they want to have a championship game, and need a 12-team conference to do so. Can you imagine the uproar in Detroit and LA if the NCAA said "Sure, Texas, go ahead and have a championship game with only 10 teams" right after the Pac-0 and Big ten expanded to 12?



It's NOT going to happen. WHoever wrote this article is an idiot.
M
Mars
BYUgrad03 wrote:
If the orangebloods.com article posted by Mars is correct, and Tech is receiving roughly $14-17 million in TV revenue in the updated Big 12(10), which will be roughly twice as much as they are receiving now, what do they possibly have to complain about?

That they will be making less than Texas A&M, of course, who they have consistently put out a better product than on the football field for a decade now.
M
Mars
33311710 wrote:
I'm sick and tired of hearing about the big 12 petitioning the NCAA to allow it to hold a championship game with only 10 teams... The Pac 10 and Big Ten have BOTH tried to do this, and been shut down

What years did the PAC-10 and Big Televen petitions fail? I'd love to read more about it.
L
Lawboy
Mars wrote:
If the orangebloods.com article posted by Mars is correct, and Tech is receiving roughly $14-17 million in TV revenue in the updated Big 12(10), which will be roughly twice as much as they are receiving now, what do they possibly have to complain about?

That they will be making less than Texas A&M, of course, who they have consistently put out a better product than on the football field for a decade now.


This is because the revenue share for the Big 12 is based upon 2 revenue sports, not just football. The share is based upon football and hoops that have the biggest TV deals. Have a solid all around AD, you get more $$$, because you increase viewership for those games when you do. And it makes sense to me. It is an incentive to achieve, not to just exist in the conference, or focus on one sport only. I have zero problem with rewarding all around greatness in sports in that way. It is fair because it is based upon results, not affiliation, like the BCS is. I like the deal and think BYU could thrive in that conference under it.

http://espn.go.com/blog/big12/post/_/id/2094/how-the-big-12-teams-rank-in-revenue-sharing-funds
M
Mars
Lawboy wrote:
This is because the revenue share for the Big 12 is based upon all sports, not just football. The share is based upon football and hoops that have teh biggest TV deals. Have a solid all around AD, you get more $$$, because you increase viewership for those games when you do. And it makes sense to me. It is an incentive to achieve, not to just exist in the conference, or focus on one sport only.

Then why the tier system, Kansas State/Iowa State $13MM, Texas Tech/Okie State $17MM, Texas/OU $20MM? Why not just say every school will earn $13-20MM?



It does seem like it's not ALL performance-based in that conference, doesn't it?



And does the Big XII TV deal really pay much for baseball, etc?
Sponsored Advertisementad content
B
BYUgrad03
Mars wrote:
This is because the revenue share for the Big 12 is based upon all sports, not just football. The share is based upon football and hoops that have teh biggest TV deals. Have a solid all around AD, you get more $$$, because you increase viewership for those games when you do. And it makes sense to me. It is an incentive to achieve, not to just exist in the conference, or focus on one sport only.

Then why the tier system, Kansas State/Iowa State $13MM, Texas Tech/Okie State $17MM, Texas/OU $20MM? Why not just say every school will earn $13-20MM?



It does seem like it's not ALL performance-based in that conference, doesn't it?



And does the Big XII TV deal really pay much for baseball, etc?


You're exactly right about Tech out performing A&M on the football field, which I've enjoyed since I grew up just outside of Lubbock. But it's not necessarily tiered on the who's who in the conference. This is a quote from an article by Tim Griffin a little over a month ago.


The Big 12 schools divvy up all money equally except that which is generated from television.



Half of the TV money is divided evenly. The other half goes into an appearance pool. The schools that earn the most money are the ones who appear for football TV games and basketball nonconference games. Credits also are issued for NCAA tournament appearances.


http://espn.go.com/blog/big12/post/_/id/2094/how-the-big-12-teams-rank-in-revenue-sharing-funds



From my understanding, the Big 12 is keeping the above revenue structure, with the schools with the most tv appearances earning the most. So the reports that Texas, A&M and OU are "guaranteed" $20 million, isn't exactly accurate, if the reports are true that the structure is the same (If they're not, and it is based soley on a tier system, then I agree with you, it's not exactly fair). Those three schools are guaranteed that amount if they maintain their current status quo in TV appearances[/i][/u]. That includes both hoops and football.



If you do math, by comparing those teams' success in football and basketball to their TV revenue for the years provided, it helps validate Giffin's statement. Therefore, making it a performance based deal. Because obviously good performance equates to more tv appearances.



Some on here agree with that type of structure, others don't. I see the "fairness" in sharing, but I also don't think that the Big 12's structure is outrageously unfair either. It's simply a matter of opinion. If the distribution is based solely on the name, then yes that's not fair and should be changed. But by all the accounts that I've read, that's not the case.



Texas will not be on top forever, and when they disappear from the scene, so will their large fanbase, and ultimately their revenue. It's just the way the cards fall. A new team will take their place, which it would be fantastic if it was us.
M
Mars
BYUgrad03 wrote:
http://espn.go.com/blog/big12/post/_/id/2094/how-the-big-12-teams-rank-in-revenue-sharing-funds

1. Texas: $10.2 million

2. Oklahoma: $9.8 million

3. Kansas: $9.24 million

4. Texas A&M: $9.22 million

5. Missouri: $8.4 million

6. Texas Tech: $8.23 million

7. Kansas State: $8.21 million

8. Oklahoma State: $8.1 million

9. Iowa State: $7.4 million

10. Baylor: $7.1 million



BLUE = Tier ONE in the new Big XII ($20MM+)

GREEN = Tier TWO in the new Big XII ($17MM)

RED = Tier THREE in the new Big XII ($13MM)



See my confusion with the new plan?





Also, why is A&M getting more TV money than Tech when their teams have stunk and Tech went 11-1 recently?
B
BYUgrad03
Mars, I completely get what you are saying and if the reports are true that those three schools get $20 million just because, then I agree with you 100%, it's not right.



However, from what I've read that number is turning out not to be completely accurate. The new tv contract is not a done deal, at least according to the orangebloods article you posted, and from other articles, Texas has made it clear that it's rejecting the penalty money from NU and CU's departure. Also, according to that same orangebloods article, they're negotiating for the possibility that all 10 schools will get $20 million.



I've heard so many conflicting reports about the Big 12 distribution plan, that the only thing I'm sure of, is that no one is sure of anything in regards to any of this. I've heard its the same distribution plan based on Griffin's article, which I have no problem with, while others have said OU, TX and A&M are guaranteed $20 million, regardless of TV appearances, which I disagree with.



I think we're just going to have to wait it out and see how the money is paid out once all the deals take effect, and if the numbers don't add up to the tv appearances and on field/ court success, then I'll jump to your side of the argument in a heart beat.
C
CougarClaw
Mars wrote:

1. Texas: $10.2 million

2. Oklahoma: $9.8 million

3. Kansas: $9.24 million

4. Texas A&M: $9.22 million

5. Missouri: $8.4 million

6. Texas Tech: $8.23 million

7. Kansas State: $8.21 million

8. Oklahoma State: $8.1 million

9. Iowa State: $7.4 million

10. Baylor: $7.1 million





BLUE = Tier ONE in the new Big XII ($20MM+)

GREEN = Tier TWO in the new Big XII ($17MM)

RED = Tier THREE in the new Big XII ($13MM)


11. All of the MWC put together: about $9 M
Page 4 of 4
This is an archived topic from the original CougarCorner forum. New replies are not accepted.