Since when do teams have to share gate revenue with other conference members?

[Rawkhawk73]

On Miller & Deace this morning, Deace said he can't fathom why the Big 10 would want to move to 9 conference games and give up a non-conference game. His reasoning was that Big 10 teams get to keep 100% of the gate for a non-conference game (less the contractual payout), but that for a conference game, the gate goes into a pot and is split evenly among all the member institutions.

I know that TV money and bowl money is put into a pot and split, but unless I'm completely ignorant on the subject, I don't believe there is any splitting of conference gate revenue.

To me, it's a no-brainer. You go to 9 conference games and ensure that you have 3 non-conference home games during the years you only get 4 conference home games. That way you'll always have 7 home games and you eliminate one of the non-conference games which saves you at least $750k in a payout. The non-conference game you are replacing with a conference game should conceivably have a higher actual attendance number because more people will come to watch a conference game than a non-conference game against Directional U which will result in a higher gate.

The financial aspect is easily in favor of 9 conference games. Now, one could argue about it causing regionalization and that'd certainly be valid. But Deace was coming at his argument today from a "flawed premise" (sorry, had to work that in there somehow) on the financial aspect......unless, of course, like I mentioned above, I am wrong on the gate receipts not being shared.

 

[Lionhearted]

On Miller & Deace this morning, Deace said he can't fathom why the Big 10 would want to move to 9 conference games and give up a non-conference game. His reasoning was that Big 10 teams get to keep 100% of the gate for a non-conference game (less the contractual payout), but that for a conference game, the gate goes into a pot and is split evenly among all the member institutions.

I know that TV money and bowl money is put into a pot and split, but unless I'm completely ignorant on the subject, I don't believe there is any splitting of conference gate revenue.

No, Deace is correct - Big Ten teams pay 35% of their home gate receipts in to the conference, which in turn distributes the pot equally among all teams.

 

[HawkI1969]

I'm tired and don't feel like doing the math, but which would be more profitable?

A) Playing another conference game and turning 35 percent of the gate over to the conference for the equal distribution (and also sharing in the distribution from the additional conference games that the other Big Ten teams would play)

or

B) Keeping 100 percent of the gate from a cupcake opponent that we have to pay $750K or more to come and play in a one-year contract.

If nothing else, I love that Delaney is doing something that, at least on the surface, is in the fans' best interests. For me, I'd rather watch Iowa play another Big Ten game and skip an Arkansas State/Eastern Illinois/UNI game every day of the week.

 

[imported_ankle23]

I'm tired and don't feel like doing the math, but which would be more profitable?

A) Playing another conference game and turning 35 percent of the gate over to the conference for the equal distribution (and also sharing in the distribution from the additional conference games that the other Big Ten teams would play)

or

B) Keeping 100 percent of the gate from a cupcake opponent that we have to pay $750K or more to come and play in a one-year contract.

If nothing else, I love that Delaney is doing something that, at least on the surface, is in the fans' best interests. For me, I'd rather watch Iowa play another Big Ten game and skip an Arkansas State/Eastern Illinois/UNI game every day of the week.

or our relationship with the clownz and what we pay them home/away.

i'm sure the b10's number crunchers have analyzed all angles. maybe they should have consulted Mr. Deace first.....

 

[ShadasRevenge]

I'm tired and don't feel like doing the math, but which would be more profitable?

A) Playing another conference game and turning 35 percent of the gate over to the conference for the equal distribution (and also sharing in the distribution from the additional conference games that the other Big Ten teams would play)

or

B) Keeping 100 percent of the gate from a cupcake opponent that we have to pay $750K or more to come and play in a one-year contract.

If nothing else, I love that Delaney is doing something that, at least on the surface, is in the fans' best interests. For me, I'd rather watch Iowa play another Big Ten game and skip an Arkansas State/Eastern Illinois/UNI game every day of the week.

It would seem to me that option A would work out best for everyone, especially for schools like Indiana and NW that have trouble getting people to come to games. Having an extra 35% of games @OSU, Michigan, PSU, etc...cannot possibly be a bad thing, especially when you're all ready keeping the money you'd have to pay a MAC or Sun Belt team. Iowa paid Arkansas State 900K last year.

 

[troy]

I'm tired and don't feel like doing the math, but which would be more profitable?

A) Playing another conference game and turning 35 percent of the gate over to the conference for the equal distribution (and also sharing in the distribution from the additional conference games that the other Big Ten teams would play)

or

B) Keeping 100 percent of the gate from a cupcake opponent that we have to pay $750K or more to come and play in a one-year contract.

If nothing else, I love that Delaney is doing something that, at least on the surface, is in the fans' best interests. For me, I'd rather watch Iowa play another Big Ten game and skip an Arkansas State/Eastern Illinois/UNI game every day of the week.

I agree with you on the non-conference yawners. The 12th game has been a joke. Delaney is also put the squeeze on Notre Dame's favorable 33.3% Big Ten Schedule.

 

[HawkI1969]

I agree with you on the non-conference yawners. The 12th game has been a joke. Delaney is also put the squeeze on Notre Dame's favorable 33.3% Big Ten Schedule.

I have so much respect for Delaney for what all happened this summer.

It's obvious the difference between him and people like Dan Beebe at the Big 12 is huge. Beebe likes to talk a big game, but Delaney quietly gets things done. And I don't think anyone realizes just how powerful he is.

The only bad part about the ninth conference game would be if we keep the cupcakes and drop the series with teams like Pitt, UConn, Arizona, etc.

 

[ICHawk24]

I wouldn't assume that a 9th conference game means a cupcake disappears from the schedule. I'm guessing that this will eliminate the Pitt/Arizona type games, and the Hawks will have a non-conf schedule of cupcake/MAC/ISU.

 

[lightning1]

What makes the most sense to me is:
Kick out ILL, NrthWstrn and IND in favor of some programs that actually sell out their stadiums.
Take the extra shared revenue and use it to enlarge the stadiums of B10 teams that have less than 100K seats.
Its a win/win for everyone.

 

[Cracca]

It would seem to me that option A would work out best for everyone, especially for schools like Indiana and NW that have trouble getting people to come to games. Having an extra 35% of games @OSU, Michigan, PSU, etc...cannot possibly be a bad thing, especially when you're all ready keeping the money you'd have to pay a MAC or Sun Belt team. Iowa paid Arkansas State 900K last year.

This is exactly the Big XI's reasoning behind this. It's all about equal balance. For all the extra money the larger schools receive in gate revenue, it balances out the negative impact on the smaller schools and everyone get an equal share.