What's new
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!

Larry Scott on Portland talk radio this morning

NW Buff

Club Member
Club Member
I got to listen to a few minutes of his talk with the morning sports guys here and I have to say that I like the guy.

He said that he really had to push the LA schools to accept equal revenue when he came in and he's not about to backtrack on that. All successful sports leagues are based on the idea of some sort of level playing field (I disagree with him on that but I'm happy he stuck to it).

Said that Texas' refusal to agree to revenue sharing killed the deal.

Going to the central timezone was only worth it for four teams although OU and OSU are very strong schools. He said that with the TV package that the Pac12 put together, things are so good right now that there has to be a very compelling reason to expand further. The bar is set very high.

TV stuff is coming together but very compressed because they have a lot to do. Should be a boost for Olympic sports since they will get much more exposure and that the Pac12 is very strong in those sports. All football games and all men's basketball games will be available.

Nice to know that the conference isn't going to chase after any team no matter how big their ego is.
 
great post thank you. The guy is smart and he would never allow Texas or Oklahoma unless it was on his terms not theirs.
 
I did a twitter search on a possible audio link of the interview and found Larry Scott has been busy giving interviews with various radio stations around the Pac-12.

I have not found the Portland interview yet but here is one he gave with a Seattle radio station

http://www.950kjr.com/cc-common/podcast/single_page.html?podcast=ian_furness

Good interview, appreciate his candor. It's pretty funny that we have hundreds of pages of threads of expansion reports and rumors on here and then here we get the actual info straight from the ringleader's mouth and no one has commented. It's mostly things we already knew but still.
 
I got to listen to a few minutes of his talk with the morning sports guys here and I have to say that I like the guy.

He said that he really had to push the LA schools to accept equal revenue when he came in and he's not about to backtrack on that. All successful sports leagues are based on the idea of some sort of level playing field (I disagree with him on that but I'm happy he stuck to it).

Said that Texas' refusal to agree to revenue sharing killed the deal.

Going to the central timezone was only worth it for four teams although OU and OSU are very strong schools. He said that with the TV package that the Pac12 put together, things are so good right now that there has to be a very compelling reason to expand further. The bar is set very high.

TV stuff is coming together but very compressed because they have a lot to do. Should be a boost for Olympic sports since they will get much more exposure and that the Pac12 is very strong in those sports. All football games and all men's basketball games will be available.

Nice to know that the conference isn't going to chase after any team no matter how big their ego is.

I am interested to hear your thought process for disagreeing. The NFL has equal revenue sharing and is printing money, the Big 10, SEC and Pac 12 have equal revenue sharing and seem to all be getting stronger. Major league baseball has it set up so small market teams have a slim hope of long term success. The NBA is shutting down for the year....The Big 12 is imploding because of the unequal revenue split....I would like to hear how the unequal thing is working out for some league.
 
While I agree MLB is set up so small market teams will never win, it's survived more than 100 years and is successful. The other easy example of a league or group of leagues that has no revenue sharing but is very successful is the Football in Europe. The Premiere League is capitalism at it's best and nastiest and they seem to be doing ok. So, I prefer nice fair revenue sharing there are examples of non-fair systems that have worked.
 
While I agree MLB is set up so small market teams will never win, it's survived more than 100 years and is successful. The other easy example of a league or group of leagues that has no revenue sharing but is very successful is the Football in Europe. The Premiere League is capitalism at it's best and nastiest and they seem to be doing ok. So, I prefer nice fair revenue sharing there are examples of non-fair systems that have worked.

Major League Baseball is shrinking, and the NBA which has very minor revenue sharing is probably going to institute much more robust revenue sharing since many of the teams are losing money. Can't speak to the EPL as I don't know enough about it but they relegate the less competitive teams to a lesser league if I recall (so basically the small market teams don't get to play in the big boy league). The NHL instituted significant revenue sharing during their lockout and are doing much better.

Competitive balance in sports means more entertaining product (ie games).
 
Soccer's different because a 2-0 score is a blowout. They need competitive imbalance to make things somewhat interesting.
 
Soccer's different because a 2-0 score is a blowout. They need competitive imbalance to make things somewhat interesting.

That's a really interesting point, that the least competitive sport indulges the most competitive market. It's cathartic, I guess.

And for you soccer lovers, I'm only kidding. I know that soccer is very competitive and try as players might, to kick the ball or hit it with their heads, it just doesn't go into the goal the way they want it to. It's not their fault.
 
While I agree MLB is set up so small market teams will never win, it's survived more than 100 years and is successful. The other easy example of a league or group of leagues that has no revenue sharing but is very successful is the Football in Europe. The Premiere League is capitalism at it's best and nastiest and they seem to be doing ok. So, I prefer nice fair revenue sharing there are examples of non-fair systems that have worked.

Only partially true, the financial antics in England make some investment bankers seem conservative and they go the "socialist route" in that they sell the TV rights collectively as a league and don´t allow the clubs to sell their TV rights for home matches individually (which some clubs would LOVE to do) like they do in Spain. There is revenue sharing in all big European leagues in that the league sells the TV rights collectively and not each club individually except for La Liga but the payout depends on several factors.

The Premier League distributes TV rights money based partly on performance, partly via equal shares of TV income, and partly on the number of times a club's matches are screened live on domestic television.This season, each club received £13.8m as the equal share of domestic TV rights and £17.9m as the equal share of overseas TV rights.
On top of that, every place in the Premier League table is worth £756,000 – West Ham received that amount and Manchester United £15.1m.

Facility fees of £582,000 are paid to a club every time they play in a live TV match – with a minimum income of £5.82m even if a club has been involved in fewer than 10 live games.


To illustrate, ManUtd, as champions got 60.4m GBP from the domestic TV rights for the 2010-2011 season and Blackpool, the lowest earners, made roughly 40m GBP. In Germany (where every game is televised) I think the ratio between top and bottom is like 2-to-1 and in Spain, where every club gets to sell the rights to their home match itself, the ratio is like 20+-to-one (Barca, Madrid make like 120m+ and over 50% of the league´s total TV revenue whereas smaller clubs like Getafe make 5m). It´s not a big surprise Spain is the most lopsided big league in Europe. Some clubs have called for a strike as they want the distribution model changed.

There IS revenue sharing everywhere but in Spain, but not equal revenue sharing
 
While I agree MLB is set up so small market teams will never win, it's survived more than 100 years and is successful. The other easy example of a league or group of leagues that has no revenue sharing but is very successful is the Football in Europe. The Premiere League is capitalism at it's best and nastiest and they seem to be doing ok. So, I prefer nice fair revenue sharing there are examples of non-fair systems that have worked.
ehh, the income inbalance is destroying the Premier league.
 
ehh, the income inbalance is destroying the Premier league.

But not the way the TV money is distributed. The problem is the Champions League and the external money that´s pumped into the game by individuals.
 
While I agree MLB is set up so small market teams will never win, it's survived more than 100 years and is successful. The other easy example of a league or group of leagues that has no revenue sharing but is very successful is the Football in Europe. The Premiere League is capitalism at it's best and nastiest and they seem to be doing ok. So, I prefer nice fair revenue sharing there are examples of non-fair systems that have worked.

Professional baseball is a joke. It is successful because of the revenue power of the few big markets that drive it, but it would skyrocket in popularity if they adopted an equal revenue sharing model. It is honestly not that much different than the current Big 12 model. You have your 2 big bullies(NY, Boston) and everybody else. In this case however, the other teams have nowhere else to go.
 
I'm not advocating a different revenue sharing policy, honestly. I am just pointing out that there are counter examples of leagues that have unequal revenue sharing. You can say MLB is dying but it's not dead and it's been around a really long time. Thanks for setting me straight on EPL finances Jens. I know they are much more of a free market than US sports when it comes to getting players but didn't know about the tv rights.

Regardless, I'm happy to be in the Pac12 with the system that's set up now.
 
Back
Top