07-22-2016, 09:57 AM
Why do all (almost all?) conference share conference revenue evenly? Wouldn't it make sense to play more valuable schools more? This would make it easier to construct conferences that made sense (across geographic or cultural or whatever lines).
So, for example, the Big 12 could do something like this:
The conference revenue is placed in a big pool and each school gets shares of that revenue based on:
1) 1 share for just being in the conference.
2) Up to 1 share based on how long a school has been in a conference.
The Big 12 was founded in 1996. Original members have been in the conference for 21 years. They would receive a full share.
TCU has been in the conference for 5 years. They would receive a 5/21 share. Any new members add in 2017 would receive a 1/21 share. Each year these shares would be recalculated and new members would gradually catch up with schools that have been in the conference longer.
3) Up to 1 share based on how valuable a school is to a conference (determined somehow objectively). So, say OU and UT are equally the most valuable schools. They'd get a full share. Say Iowa State is determined to be 1/10 as valuable as those two schools. They'd get a 1/10 share.
Under this scheme, the list of schools you could add to the conference would go way up, because you'd more nearly be paying the new schools what they were worth to the conference.
For example, say you added Tulsa for some reason. They'd end up getting something like 1 + 1/21 + 1/10 = 1.15 shares compared to UT and OU's 3 shares. And, I think they'd be happy to have it because it'd be a big step up from AAC money.
You'd need to do away with the Longhorn Network and go to a conference network, but I think this revenue model (or something like it) is a good idea.
The weights of the three types of shares could be adjusted if need be.
So, for example, the Big 12 could do something like this:
The conference revenue is placed in a big pool and each school gets shares of that revenue based on:
1) 1 share for just being in the conference.
2) Up to 1 share based on how long a school has been in a conference.
The Big 12 was founded in 1996. Original members have been in the conference for 21 years. They would receive a full share.
TCU has been in the conference for 5 years. They would receive a 5/21 share. Any new members add in 2017 would receive a 1/21 share. Each year these shares would be recalculated and new members would gradually catch up with schools that have been in the conference longer.
3) Up to 1 share based on how valuable a school is to a conference (determined somehow objectively). So, say OU and UT are equally the most valuable schools. They'd get a full share. Say Iowa State is determined to be 1/10 as valuable as those two schools. They'd get a 1/10 share.
Under this scheme, the list of schools you could add to the conference would go way up, because you'd more nearly be paying the new schools what they were worth to the conference.
For example, say you added Tulsa for some reason. They'd end up getting something like 1 + 1/21 + 1/10 = 1.15 shares compared to UT and OU's 3 shares. And, I think they'd be happy to have it because it'd be a big step up from AAC money.
You'd need to do away with the Longhorn Network and go to a conference network, but I think this revenue model (or something like it) is a good idea.
The weights of the three types of shares could be adjusted if need be.