Question: BT shares gate revenues, but is that conference and non-conference?
- Thread starter Tommaker
- Start date
Thanks! We've been discussing the switch to 6 home games. This tells me that non-conference are our own to either make (or lose) money on.
I believe the home team has to pay the visiting team to play for non conference games depending on the agreed contract.
Yes Des...but the premise to the person's question was answered in the article. It doesn't matter the amount of TV money since that wasn't the question. The question was about whether the conference shares non-con gate revenue or not....
Had the question been about TV money, I would have linked a current TV deal article for the B1G as such...
Forbes: 'B1GTV Rights Deal'
My question would be if the gate sharing has continued as described after the huge increase in TV income.
It has been altered before because of changing conditions.
Not much you can do as Bobinski stated. It's silly to pay $2 million for Miami (OH) or Toledo to come to Purdue when you are losing money and it provides little to no incentive. I'm ok with getting a home game against a Missouri, Kentucky, Vandy, etc if it means the away game is within reason to drive to for fans.
Yet hasn't been altered at this point. Your point could have been made in a bit less of a condescending manner was my issue.
Sorry, having been a party to one of a number of changes in the policy at Big Ten meetings more than 45 years ago I know that a six year old guideline can be easily altered if circumstances change dramatically and somebody suggests the old policy may have outlived its purpose and become punitive. In this case, penalizing winning programs for their success at the gate could possibly have been motivated by a windfall that everyone shares but the successful football programs do the most to contribute. Not meant to be condescending whatsoever.
But gate sharing has been in place for decades, right?
I guess I missed the chatter where we are losing a home game. I don’t think I’m onboard. 7 home games should be the norm.
In one manner or another. Originally you kept your home gate and your opponent kept theirs. The Northwestern downturn in the 70’s through 90’s led to subsidies from the weak to the strong which enabled the conference to preserve the home and home format. Prior to that you have the periods when weak teams attendance wise got 1 home game to every 4-5 games they played in Ann Arbor or Columbus.
From the sounds of it, it'll be the last time we do. The side discussion we were having with a few folks included my own question of what the other "have nots" will be doing with that extra game; will they continue to pony up for a limited appeal opponent that has minimal draw (gate and TV wise) or will the majority of the conference go to a six game home schedule? I'm assuming plan B.
I think what you try to do is what Bobinski has shown he will do:
In years of the 6 home games, they may try to make that up with some event or events at Ross Ade. For the years that they have 7 home games, they'll try to buckle those up with two non-conference games that would be big draws potentially.
One of the other things we kicked around was a 7th game at a neutral site, like Lucas Oil, or Bengal stadium, etc. That could be interesting. I think the Northwestern/Illinois game at Wrigley went over pretty well.
