(06-08-2021 12:37 PM)DFW HOYA Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 02:50 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  The Texas deal is unique in college sports, but that's not the most important factor. Oklahoma is the chief rival of Texas and they have no real motivation to accept a financial difference that doesn't exist in any other P5 league.

Your argument lost me there. Outside the second Saturday in October, UTexas' rival has always been Texas A&M, which is why the Orangebloods were caught off guard by the Aggies' escape to the SEC, and why it's the UT fans, not the A&M fans, clamoring to restart the annual rivalry.

What the Horns tacitly realize is that a strong showing in SEC West is still more powerful than winning the Big 12.

That's a matter of opinion on who the most important rival is. Whether one considers A&M or OU to be the chief rival, it doesn't really matter. Both schools see Texas as an important rival and therefore it is essential to match them or outmatch them. A lesser position is not tolerable regardless of how one might rank them.

Ask Oklahoma fans who their main rival is and they will say Texas. They won't say Oklahoma State or anyone else. Given their blue blood status, there's no reason to settle for 2nd place financially or structurally.

(06-08-2021 10:49 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 02:50 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(06-07-2021 12:21 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-07-2021 10:38 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(06-07-2021 10:00 AM)Wedge Wrote:  Why? 29 million people live in Texas. 4 million people live in Oklahoma. I'm pretty sure the folks in the OU athletic department understand that.

We are in a post-market model though. Just because Texas has more people in it doesn’t mean that more people are watching Texas football and the accompanying commercials.

What’s more important is actual viewers, and in that regard the two are quite similar.

This isn't a slight difference in population, it's an enormous difference. Even if OU had a larger percentage of its home audience, UT's total pool is so much larger. 10% of Texas is about a million more people than 50% of Oklahoma.

If we look at similar games, similar time slots, same channel, etc., the Horns audiences are somewhat larger even though the Sooners have had better W-L records and have been in CFP contention more consistently in the past several years. If the roles were reversed and the Horns were consistently better on the field, it would be no contest. TV networks won't assume UT will be 8-4 or 7-5 every year forever, and they won't assume OU will be 11-1 every year.

Except that it's an irrelevant difference in population.

The difference in population between Alabama and Florida is quite significant. Heck, there are about twice as many people in Georgia as in Alabama. Nonetheless, all these schools make the same TV money. Their contracts are bundled and distributed evenly. It works and it creates balance.

The Texas deal is unique in college sports, but that's not the most important factor. Oklahoma is the chief rival of Texas and they have no real motivation to accept a financial difference that doesn't exist in any other P5 league.

But it's not just financial, it's branding. What if Stanford was offered a platform all their own and paid more in the process? Would UC-Berkley or USC or any of the others have an issue with that?

Sure, if you gave Stanford a pay-per-view platform and each of their 17 super-rich fans paid $1 million each year to subscribe, that might work out for them.

But seriously: The Pac-10 already had unequal revenue distribution. USC and UCLA were paid quite a bit more than the average, Wazzu and a couple others were paid less. There wasn't much complaining.

USC and UCLA only agreed to give that up in the Pac-12 on the condition that the "new" TV contract pay them at least X dollars per year. That X was exceeded because people were, at the time, surprised by how large the ESPN/Fox contract was. So now there's equal TV money distribution.

Equal distribution of TV money is in fashion today, but there's no law of nature that requires doing it that way, as opposed to giving the largest share of TV money to the teams that provide the most value to the contract.

Would it have done any good for the likes of Wazzu to complain? Just like it wouldn't do any good for Iowa State to complain about the distributions of the Big 12.

But if one of the power programs in the conference was playing 2nd fiddle, and if that position was locked in contractually rather than based on performance, then they have reason to complain. That''s Oklahoma's situation.

There's a reason equal revenue sharing became fashionable, all the strongest leagues feature it.

Awful Announcing on the Pac 12, including a link to a NYTimes article with an interview with outgoing commissioner Larry Scott: https://awfulannouncing.com/ncaa/larry-s...rease.html

(06-08-2021 01:57 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 10:49 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 02:50 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(06-07-2021 12:21 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-07-2021 10:38 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  We are in a post-market model though. Just because Texas has more people in it doesn’t mean that more people are watching Texas football and the accompanying commercials.

What’s more important is actual viewers, and in that regard the two are quite similar.

This isn't a slight difference in population, it's an enormous difference. Even if OU had a larger percentage of its home audience, UT's total pool is so much larger. 10% of Texas is about a million more people than 50% of Oklahoma.

If we look at similar games, similar time slots, same channel, etc., the Horns audiences are somewhat larger even though the Sooners have had better W-L records and have been in CFP contention more consistently in the past several years. If the roles were reversed and the Horns were consistently better on the field, it would be no contest. TV networks won't assume UT will be 8-4 or 7-5 every year forever, and they won't assume OU will be 11-1 every year.

Except that it's an irrelevant difference in population.

The difference in population between Alabama and Florida is quite significant. Heck, there are about twice as many people in Georgia as in Alabama. Nonetheless, all these schools make the same TV money. Their contracts are bundled and distributed evenly. It works and it creates balance.

The Texas deal is unique in college sports, but that's not the most important factor. Oklahoma is the chief rival of Texas and they have no real motivation to accept a financial difference that doesn't exist in any other P5 league.

But it's not just financial, it's branding. What if Stanford was offered a platform all their own and paid more in the process? Would UC-Berkley or USC or any of the others have an issue with that?

Sure, if you gave Stanford a pay-per-view platform and each of their 17 super-rich fans paid $1 million each year to subscribe, that might work out for them.

But seriously: The Pac-10 already had unequal revenue distribution. USC and UCLA were paid quite a bit more than the average, Wazzu and a couple others were paid less. There wasn't much complaining.

USC and UCLA only agreed to give that up in the Pac-12 on the condition that the "new" TV contract pay them at least X dollars per year. That X was exceeded because people were, at the time, surprised by how large the ESPN/Fox contract was. So now there's equal TV money distribution.

Equal distribution of TV money is in fashion today, but there's no law of nature that requires doing it that way, as opposed to giving the largest share of TV money to the teams that provide the most value to the contract.

Would it have done any good for the likes of Wazzu to complain? Just like it wouldn't do any good for Iowa State to complain about the distributions of the Big 12.

But if one of the power programs in the conference was playing 2nd fiddle, and if that position was locked in contractually rather than based on performance, then they have reason to complain. That''s Oklahoma's situation.

There's a reason equal revenue sharing became fashionable, all the strongest leagues feature it.

Having higher or lower TV revenue was based on relative TV value, which is only partly related to on-field performance.

In the Big 12's case, if you lock OU into a UT better-than-the-rest revenue level based on recent performance, then do you remove that lock if Sooners football starts performing like Huskers football?

OU is already getting a lot more TV money than every Big 12 team except UT. They can choose to be either happy or disgruntled if they want, it's up to them, but objectively the relative valuation within the conference is fair.

Wedge I think you miss the point. OU is not comparing their TV revenue to Kansas State, but to LSU and Penn State.

The deal OU has only gets them about $4-5m more in revenue for their 3rd tier than the little-8, while Texas is now getting over $15m more (the LHN is on an escalator of 3% per year) with a widening gap. The Longhorns are still short of B1G and SEC money,, but close enough they can ride it out into the next decade. But OU doesn't have that. We are talking a gap of as much as $250m over the decade to schools they see themselves competing with in the B1G and SEC. That is huge.

I think that realignment is now in the hands of the playoff committee.

It's the first time that the schools have come together to map out a long term strategy since the paradigm shift we have experienced once called expansion and now referred to as realignment.

I believe their suggestions could create "made for TV conferences" that will necessitate the movement of several schools from existing conference into others.

It is no secret that there are schools that are in the wrong place and that there are rivalries that have been put on hold or cancelled.

This group, the playoff committee, aided by media data, has the ability to suggest the moves that would set things right. We will see if they can get it right AND if the schools/existing conferences are willing to take their suggestions.