RalphieMalph
Well-Known Member
Thoughts?
he lives!!!! now get me a beer and burrito and pay for your club membership!!!Thoughts?
The really nice part about not having a club membership is that most people don't notice when you post something - I've got welcome back messages/rep spanning about the past 6 weeks. Club membership be damned!
Follow-up question: If the Pac-12 revenue sharing model is a socialist program, who would the University of Colorado within the context of the United States? Disenfranchised laborers from our formerly viable manufacturing sector? Floor managers at Wal-Mart? Recent college graduates working temp gigs for $10/hr? Black people? The question here is the degree to which our ass is getting saved by this system.
:lol:
It's a consortium of independent operations that choose to band together to create a group brand because they each agree that by working together they can make a lot more money than any could make on its own. The new organization is like a 12-way joint venture in which each shareholder gets one share. Risks and rewards are shared equally. Each, on its own, still retains tremendous opportunities to earn money on operations not associated with the new brand that is wholly its own and not shared with the group. In the event that the 12-way joint venture chooses to expand to 16, it offers 4 new shares for 4 new members and each of the original 12 dilute proportionally with the shared risk/reward that the value of the additional members outweighs the cost of dilution. The issuance of new shares is only approved by vote of a super-majority of current members under the agreed-to by-laws. New members enter the association by choice after considering what other options may be available to them and weighing the pros and cons of the best entrepreneurial strategy for its operation.
How in the hell is that socialism?
Because the lump sum of money that the league receives on a yearly basis is divided equally amongst the 12 teams involved. Performance is irrelevant - if you win 2 games and bring in Evening Shade rerun level ratings, you get X amount of dollars from the television contract. If you win 10 games and your games consistently get picked up nationally, you get X amount of dollars from the television contract as well.
It's a system in which all parties have agreed that it's in their best interest to make certain that they'll all get paid at a level that will sustain their existence comfortably regardless of their on the field performance. Surely, some will perform beyond expectations in one year and enjoy significant monetary bonuses from outside sources (and others will do the opposite, fail to receive those bonuses, and live far less lavishly as a result of it) but no one will live within the realm of gratuitous wealth that would be possible if they DIDN'T participate in this revenue sharing, nor will anyone experience a level of relative AD poverty that would be possible were the rewards of being in the conference based solely upon performance.
That's TOTALLY socialism! Eliminating the highest and lowest realms of monetary gain/loss for the sake of creating a predictable and reliable flow of stable income.
It is socialist, Nik, if this was capitalist, they´d handle it like they handle it with the TV rights in Spain where every team gets to sell its home games themselves. The result? The 20 teams receive approx 600m € for the TV rights in total. Barcelona make 158m €, Real Madrid make 136m € (that´s approx 50% of the money for 2 teams) and smaller teams like Getafe get 5m €.
Is that fair? Yes, but it´s not good for competition. Not good at all.
You think Washington State would be able to get the same deal USC gets if they got to sell their rights individually?
The public has medical contracts and each citizen owns an equal share. The equal sharing is on access to healthcare. Whether Bob breaks his arm, or develops cancer or remains perfectly healthy in 2015, the amount that he pays for medical rights for that year is the same. He bought medical rights. I don't understand your point.
Cooperation in the service of self-interested capitalism does not equal socialism.
fify.
It's in the interest of maximizing financial stability/predictability and minimizing risk for all involved parties.
It's removing the extremes of potential wealth or lack thereof in exchange for a large predictable sum every year, regardless of individual performance.
It largely removes the financial punishments for an 18 game road losing streak, or a loss of scholarships, or whatever other ills can befall a program. And at the same time it removes many of the potential riches for winning back to back MNC's.
It's totally socialist!
It's in the interest of maximizing financial stability/predictability and minimizing risk for all involved parties.
It's removing the extremes of potential wealth or lack thereof in exchange for a large predictable sum every year, regardless of individual performance.
It largely removes the financial punishments for an 18 game road losing streak, or a loss of scholarships, or whatever other ills can befall a program. And at the same time it removes many of the potential riches for winning back to back MNC's.
It's totally socialist!
Nik, here is something to ponder when it comes to your claim that the teams have choices: Was staying in the big12 really a legitimate option?
Is a co-op socialist?
I'm undecided on this, and I've actually been thinking about it long before this thread.
I think maybe the conferences are the businesses (not the schools), and good football (in this example) is the product. For this perspective, you'd have to move your level of competition up a notch. Instead of the teams competing directly in the marketplace, it's the conferences that compete. Thus capitalism.
I think maybe the conferences are the businesses (not the schools), and good football (in this example) is the product. For this perspective, you'd have to move your level of competition up a notch. Instead of the teams competing directly in the marketplace, it's the conferences that compete. Thus capitalism.
It's in the interest of maximizing financial stability/predictability and minimizing risk for all involved parties.
It's removing the extremes of potential wealth or lack thereof in exchange for a large predictable sum every year, regardless of individual performance.
It largely removes the financial punishments for an 18 game road losing streak, or a loss of scholarships, or whatever other ills can befall a program. And at the same time it removes many of the potential riches for winning back to back MNC's.
It's totally socialist!