(06-01-2013 12:24 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  

(06-01-2013 12:10 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-31-2013 11:19 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(05-31-2013 10:06 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-31-2013 05:48 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  They do for the most part but some schools get "performance" bonuses. I'd be interested to see the payout for Alabama vs Mississippi St. Does anyone know if A&M and Missouri get reduced payouts?

They should receive an equal share minus any loan repayments the SEC may have made to help them make their moves. I'm not sure the Aggies got one, but I think Mizzou did.

And to answer your previous question, Mizzou and A&M receive full shares, unlike the Big Ten.

That was unusual. Shows the SEC really wanted A&M. And they couldn't very well offer Missouri, from the same conference, a worse deal. Utah got a weaker deal than Colorado and Rutgers than Maryland, but both were starting from a lower revenue stream in the MWC and Big East.

Each conference, including the SEC, has its faults, but they are excellent at building comradery among the member institutions. Small things like full revenue sharing from Day 1 for new members, scheduling premiere home openers for their inaugural SEC football games, and trying to build unanimity for big decisions instead of pushing through rules/policies that only have 3/4 support are why they don't need a Grant of Rights or any other agreement to stick together. All in all, they try to do right by each other, which I suppose lines up with the "Handshake is my bond" mentality down here. Now, let's get going on that uniform drug policy, scheduling more conference games, and sticking to the promises made this week to hold each other more accountable in non-conference basketball scheduling.

(06-02-2013 11:58 AM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(06-01-2013 12:24 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  

(06-01-2013 12:10 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-31-2013 11:19 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(05-31-2013 10:06 PM)JRsec Wrote:  They should receive an equal share minus any loan repayments the SEC may have made to help them make their moves. I'm not sure the Aggies got one, but I think Mizzou did.

And to answer your previous question, Mizzou and A&M receive full shares, unlike the Big Ten.

That was unusual. Shows the SEC really wanted A&M. And they couldn't very well offer Missouri, from the same conference, a worse deal. Utah got a weaker deal than Colorado and Rutgers than Maryland, but both were starting from a lower revenue stream in the MWC and Big East.

Each conference, including the SEC, has its faults, but they are excellent at building comradery among the member institutions. Small things like full revenue sharing from Day 1 for new members, scheduling premiere home openers for their inaugural SEC football games, and trying to build unanimity for big decisions instead of pushing through rules/policies that only have 3/4 support are why they don't need a Grant of Rights or any other agreement to stick together. All in all, they try to do right by each other, which I suppose lines up with the "Handshake is my bond" mentality down here. Now, let's get going on that uniform drug policy, scheduling more conference games, and sticking to the promises made this week to hold each other more accountable in non-conference basketball scheduling.

Agreed...