Not a horrible read. I think it makes a good point that the arrangement was necessary for the Big 12 to be created in the first place, despite the tendency for many fans to bash the big schools (mostly Texas) for the split formula.

http://newsok.com/berry-tramel-revenue-sharing-inequity-helps-keep-texas-in-big-12/article/3441268

I thought it had been equal share....must be frustrating for Iowa St, Baylor etc who tend to always come up short somehow.

Schools like tu get more from donations & fan attendance & t-shirts & radio broadcast rights & now un-equal tv money sharing.

quote:

---

...& now un-equal tv money sharing.

---

It's been that way since the Big 12 was formed, when both Texas and Oklahoma were not very good and neither got on television as much as they do now. Texas is not the one who pushed for the system... it was mostly Nebraska, Colorado, KSU, and A&M that pushed for the current system because they were on top at the time and wanted to reap the rewards.

For a bunch of guys that claim to be "conservative republicans" yall sure do complain about the (un)equal revenue sharing a lot. If Texas, OU and anybody else are on TV more, why shouldn't they get more money. They are the one generating the money for the conference.

quote:

---

If Texas, OU and anybody else are on TV more, why shouldn't they get more money. They are the one generating the money for the conference.

---

That's entirely true from a free-market capitalist point of view. However, amateur athletics aren't supposed to be paradigms of free-market capitalism. That's kind of the point of the whole anti-BCS/pro-playoff movement.

It should also be noted that in addition to the Big Ten, the NFL also uses revenue-sharing from its TV contracts. If it's good enough for the NFL...

What Jeff said...

It also brings to light why all these former collegiate football players have sued EA Sports and the NCAA. Why are these institutions making money off of them? And why aren't they getting paid?

Weiberg, previous Big 12 commish, made sure one division or one team didnt dominate tv appearances. He kept everyone happy, except possibly the 'big' schools who thought they deserved more.
Under Weiberg the difference between first and last in tv dollars was at most a little over a million dollars.

Now we're looking at 3+ million disparity in tv money with the lower end of the Big 12. Also the small schools are having to fight tooth and nail for the meager tv appearances they get.

The model was flawed from the beginning, only strong leadership from Weiberg kept everyone happy.
Now with Beebe bending over for TU and OU, and not advocating for the smaller schools the whole thing is falling apart.

TU with its nay vote on the Big 12 tv network being the institution that lit the fuse that is imploding the whole thing.

[This message has been edited by BaronVonAggie (edited 2/23/2010 7:11p).]

anyone know where A&M ranks in terms of the TV revenue? I bet we are low...seems very few of our games have been televised last few years.

Found this. Interesting seeing KU up there. Guess cuz of hoops.

2006-07 Big 12
Revenue Split
• Texas: $9.51 million
• Oklahoma: $9.09 million
• Nebraska: $8.61 million
• Kansas: $8.58 million
• Texas A&M: $8.43 million
• Missouri: $7.76 million
• Texas Tech: $7.50 million
• Kansas State: $7.03 million
• Colorado: $6.90 million
• Iowa State: $6.84 million
• Baylor: $6.69 million
• Oklahoma State: $6.59 million

baylor>okstate

/laughy-cry

ok state had to have made a lot more last year however since they were overrated and on TV a lot.

[This message has been edited by FtBendTxAg (edited 2/23/2010 11:19p).]

Sodium says,

quote:

---

It's been that way since the Big 12 was formed, when both Texas and Oklahoma were not very good and neither got on television as much as they do now. Texas is not the one who pushed for the system... it was mostly Nebraska, Colorado, KSU, and A&M that pushed for the current system because they were on top at the time and wanted to reap the rewards.

---

Not so fast, as the article says ...

quote:

---

When the Big 12 was formed, "Texas had options,” said then-OU athletic director Donnie Duncan, who with Dodds put the league together. "Those options haven’t changed.”

Texas, and Oklahoma, and most everyone else, looked out for itself 15 years ago and looks out for itself today. Turns out, the lack of equitable-revenue sharing, which helped put the league together, is helping it stay together.

---

Please cut the PC talk with the line that Texas is a victim of this -- they were up to their eyeballs back then and have only gotten more greedy with time.

quote:

---

Revenue Split
? Texas: $9.51 million
? Oklahoma: $9.09 million
? Nebraska: $8.61 million
? Kansas: $8.58 million
? Texas A&M: $8.43 million
? Missouri: $7.76 million
? Texas Tech: $7.50 million
? Kansas State: $7.03 million
? Colorado: $6.90 million
? Iowa State: $6.84 million
? Baylor: $6.69 million
? Oklahoma State: $6.59 million

---

Or to put it another way, normalized amounts, 1 = $9.51 million

Revenue Split

Texas: 1.000
Oklahoma: 0.956
Nebraska: 0.905
Kansas: 0.902
Texas A&M: 0.866
Missouri: 0.816
Texas Tech: 0.789
Kansas State: 0.739
Colorado: 0.726
Iowa State: 0.719
Baylor: 0.703
Oklahoma State: 0.693

Couple of things from the reader comments that stuck out to me.

quote:

---

The problem with Oklahoma is TU, which steals some good football talent away from OU and OSU.

---

So Texas is raiding Oklahoma for players now.

quote:

---

You have the other forty-nine states--and then Texas. Whether UT were in the Big 10, the Pac 10 or the Big 12---other conference members would occasionally be reminded God created Texas first and then eventually created what we know now genrally recognize as the other six continents.

---

I like where your head's at.

quote:

---

The inequity helps keep Texas in the league.

---

Wrong.

The 'unequal' share texas got last year was $12 million. Every school in the Big 10 got $22 million. If Texas were to go to the Big 10, it is estimated that every Big 10 school would get $25 to $27 million.

Just because texas gets an unequal share of Big 12 $, that does nothing to keep them in the Big 12 if an equal share from the Big 10 would mean so much more.

Why do legit journalists keep missing this point?

quote:

---

The 'unequal' share texas got last year was $12 million. Every school in the Big 10 got $22 million. If Texas were to go to the Big 10, it is estimated that every Big 10 school would get $25 to $27 million.

Just because texas gets an unequal share of Big 12 $, that does nothing to keep them in the Big 12 if an equal share from the Big 10 would mean so much more.

---

Then why should the other Big12 programs be asked to lessen their shares just so Texas can be equal to a Northwestern when it comes to monies coming in?

The problem is the Big12 marketing and contract teams -- not the programs asked to tighten their belts to enable Texas to unfasten theirs. Together we stand or divided we fall.

quote:

---

Then why should the other Big12 programs be asked to lessen their shares

---

No one is being asked to lessen anything. The current revenue arrangement dates from the formation of the Big 12. Nothing has changed since then.