This whole things seems to boil down to Texas' financial ADVANTAGE over the other B12 schools. They want to keep it.
And of course we know....that's not how conference's work. Even though Ohio State and Florida State, etc...COULD have financial advantages in their conferences, they instead share revenue.
Finally, B12 expansion is tied to the network, then the expansion, IMO is likely to be tied more geographically than what has been reported. I think this means Florida AAC schools are not in play....which schools can deliver on the network in their market...that will drive the expansion bus...a school like West Virginia and its 2 million people fit that criteria.
(05-12-2016 07:31 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote: Hell freezes over before Texas gives up the LHN to morph it into the B12 network. There's no upside for them to do it.
LHN = failure= losing money for both Texas and ESPN.
Its always made money for Texas. And it will make money for ESPN this year.
Part of me still likes the way the Big 12 does its revenue, i.e. equal for the old "tiers" 1 and 2 and the schools controlling tier 3. Intuitively the most valuable brands should get more of the pie, and the market determines how much more. Admittedly it does create instability as we are seeing, but I still like it intuitively. Maybe that's just the free market side of me talking...
(05-13-2016 07:32 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote: Part of me still likes the way the Big 12 does its revenue, i.e. equal for the old "tiers" 1 and 2 and the schools controlling tier 3. Intuitively the most valuable brands should get more of the pie, and the market determines how much more. Admittedly it does create instability as we are seeing, but I still like it intuitively. Maybe that's just the free market side of me talking...
I actually agree and despite all the talk, this is actually closer to how most conferences did it till recently. The SEC teams had their 3rd tier rights until the SEC Network. The PAC-10 had the most unequal revenue distribution which heavily rewarded teams who were on TV more (that's 1st/2nd tier, not the 3rd tier, which they also kept). The Big East wasn't equal revenue sharing for their top tier before Miami left (maybe not even after, not sure there) and that was the one argument for them staying. The Big 12 meanwhile has equalized the 1st and 2nd tier, just hasn't done the 3rd tier. That seems fair enough to me.
(05-13-2016 07:32 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote: Part of me still likes the way the Big 12 does its revenue, i.e. equal for the old "tiers" 1 and 2 and the schools controlling tier 3. Intuitively the most valuable brands should get more of the pie, and the market determines how much more. Admittedly it does create instability as we are seeing, but I still like it intuitively. Maybe that's just the free market side of me talking...
Yeah, it's a fallacy to argue that paying everyone the same amount makes everyone happy. Let's say 10 realtors own a realty company that represents sellers. Two of them each sell over 50 properties a year, while 5 of them each average 10 sales per year. Would paying all 10 realtors an equal share of company profits create stability and harmony? No.
To take Wedge's analogy (post 29) further, and in another direction:
Let's pretend that 10 guys in the office are making well over six figures salary (no commissions) plus great benefits, while the nationwide average for a typical realtor is lucky to be $50k at the end of the day with poor benefits. In other words, they're all doing very, very well.
But yet, the #1 guy in the office comes to the manager and says "Hey what the heck! I'm the #1 guy! But I'm only getting paid the same as everyone else?? Nah ... the heck with that! I want DOUBLE!" The manager replies "but ... we can't afford to pay you that and still pay everyone else what they're making. We'd have to take away from the other guys to afford to pay you that much." The #1 guy replies "doesn't mean squat to me. I earned it, I demand it! Pay up or I walk!"
... Is that really the type of guy you want in your office?
(This post was last modified: 05-13-2016 01:46 PM by MplsBison.)
(05-13-2016 01:46 PM)MplsBison Wrote: To take Wedge's analogy (post 29) further, and in another direction:
Let's pretend that 10 guys in the office are making well over six figures salary (no commissions) plus great benefits, while the nationwide average for a typical realtor is lucky to be $50k at the end of the day with poor benefits. In other words, they're all doing very, very well.
But yet, the #1 guy in the office comes to the manager and says "Hey what the heck! I'm the #1 guy! But I'm only getting paid the same as everyone else?? Nah ... the heck with that! I want DOUBLE!" The manager replies "but ... we can't afford to pay you that and still pay everyone else what they're making. We'd have to take away from the other guys to afford to pay you that much." The #1 guy replies "doesn't mean squat to me. I earned it, I demand it! Pay up or I walk!"
... Is that really the type of guy you want in your office?
Manager comes to the highest producer who makes double what everybody else does and says we need your extra money to make everybody even. Would anybody good want to work there?
And so you probably can agree that it comes down to foundational ideology and how you think the world should be.
In my opinion, if everyone is doing very well, what gives you the right to be greedy at the expense of your colleagues/neighbors/brothers? That's a very sad, disappointing sentiment, to me.
But not all people view it that way.
(This post was last modified: 05-13-2016 01:59 PM by MplsBison.)
Manager comes to the highest producer who makes double what everybody else does and says we need your extra money to make everybody even. Would anybody good want to work there?
All this talk depends on if you see the conference as the corporation or each individual unit within the conference as a corporation. We have an example of the former in pro sports, the NFL and of the later in pro sports, MLB. Which is more successful to you? I will let you make the call.
(05-13-2016 07:32 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote: Part of me still likes the way the Big 12 does its revenue, i.e. equal for the old "tiers" 1 and 2 and the schools controlling tier 3. Intuitively the most valuable brands should get more of the pie, and the market determines how much more. Admittedly it does create instability as we are seeing, but I still like it intuitively. Maybe that's just the free market side of me talking...
It depends also on what they can do with a conference wide network.
I think equal revenue sharing for TV across the board is probably best conference wide. OSU sill has a nice advantage over Purdue, they sell many more tickets and at higher prices. The top producers also get a bigger cut of the bowl playoff revenue I believe.
(This post was last modified: 05-13-2016 02:47 PM by SuperFlyBCat.)
(05-13-2016 02:40 PM)Tigeer Wrote: All this talk depends on if you see the conference as the corporation or each individual unit within the conference as a corporation. We have an example of the former in pro sports, the NFL and of the later in pro sports, MLB. Which is more successful to you? I will let you make the call.