Discussion in 'Colorado Football Message Board' started by OKCBuff, Feb 22, 2010.
If losing CU and MU is "helping it stay together", then I agree. The fact of the matter is that the lack of revenue sharing is what will kill the conference. But at least UT will get to keep it's extra cash.
**** Texas. What options? The Pac-10 considered them but Stanford voted no.
The strongest leagues have equal sharing. The PAC also needs to fix this.
I don't know if the revenue sharing issue is as big of a deal for CU as it is for some of the smaller schools. We tend to get on TV a fair amount given how craptastic we are. Win, and we'd be on quite a bit. CU being so awful has been one of the things hurting the conference. You used to see us mentioned with the Big 4 a lot more, though we would never have the same level of AD budget. When we formed the conference CU probably didn't object too much to the TV sharing agreement because we probably expected to be one of the top schools, we really have had a pretty spectacular and sustained fall to the bottom of the conference.
I think the bigger deals for CU are getting closer to our alumni base and getting fans more involved in the program, and overall competitiveness. I think CU thinks it has a better shot of competing for the best Cali recruits in the PAC 10 then competing for the best TX recruits in the Big 12, as well as the fact that unfortunately CU is just not equipped to compete against the mega spending in the Big 12...we don't have any personal oil barons or oil land grants like the Oklahoma and Texas schools, or a fan base that has no competing sports or entertainment markets within 500 miles. Most of our big time donors are inclined to give that money to the actual school rather than the AD (kind of a crazy concept, I know). The PAC 10 fits our spending and competition profile a lot more than the Big 12 does, as well as all the cultural stuff.
Great points, SuperD.
I think when the conference was formed, the leaders of the Big 12 figured a combo of Colorado/Nebraska/K-State in the North and OU/Texas/A&M in the South would always be at the top and create some awesome title games. But the conference has never really been strong at the same time on either side, as the North had the better teams from 1996-2000 and from then on the South has been more dominant.
It wouldn't take too much success for CU to be considered elite in the league again.
The most telling parts of that article for me was:
by the author.
from Dan Beebe.
The flawed part of their logic is that the lack of equal revenue sharing and agreement on revenue sharing not being based on TV appearances is what killed the Big 12 Network before it even had a chance. This is why Kevin Weiberg quit as commish, went to the Big Ten and helped them successfully launch their billion-dollar TV network.
Beebe, Texas, Nebraska, and the sell-out followers Oklahoma and Texas A&M are not causing "all ships to rise". They are the greedy fishermen that don't believe in quotas in order to guarantee a lifetime of fishing, but would much rather overfill their boat today.
Adapt or die Big 12.
The fact that these articles are coming out shows that the Big 12 feels the need to push their PR agenda out there as a defense mechanism. They really are under heavy fire.
More than pure revenue equality I think one of the other larger issues is the idea that TX and to a lesser extent NU are talking about not needing a Big 12 network because they want their own "Longhorn" or "Husker" network. That actually does deliberately screw all the other schools, and has nothing to do with "raising all the boats". TX has the largest media market. If they focus on building their own network to maximize their revenue that undercuts the other schools because not only does it prevent more equal revenue sharing but it drastically reduces what networks are willing to pay for the rights for the rest of the league...and Beebe is still out there actively pushing this idea as a means of keeping teams (read UT) in the fold. It may work as a way to keep other leagues from poaching TX but its not going keep CU or MU in line. My question is for some of these super-conference ideas, would TX actually be willing to give up on some of these goals in a new conference. Maybe in the Big 10 where the network is established and the large revenue stream is pretty much guaranteed. But Scott would have his work cut out for him to bring TX into the PAC-10, first to get the PAC-10 unanimous vote and then to get everyone to agree to a revenue scheme.
Yep all great points SuperD.
The "merger" talks with the Pac-10/Big 12 add even more variables to the equation as well.
I could see a conference-owned network that allows for regional "branding" within each teams footprint, but as you point out, that would also be the means with which teams could have revenue disparity.
As a capitalist, part of me says this should be fine and that CU has every reason to be successful enough to support this type of scenario; but the realist in me says that the state of Colorado doesn't support our flagship school as much as I would like.
Separate names with a comma.