Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Broadcast revenue sharing for major conferences: is this an idea whose time has come? And couldn't it quite possibly end the insanity of the current conference realignment-from-hell and return these programs to sanity.
and progress?
Look at pro sports. NFL shares its broadcast revenue; MLB does not. The NFL gets the desired type of competition as a result. MLB tips heavily in favor of big market teams; actually tilts would be a better word for it in this so uneven playing field.
NFL gives us the joy of tiny Green Bay having not only a competitive team, but the Packers being world champs. The MLB assures us that not only will the Kansas City Royals and Pittsburgh Pirates never play each other in a world series, but that neither of them will ever even get there.
Doesn't logic tell you that when you organize to play sports, you want the fairest playing field you can reasonably expect and that all on that field not only have a chance, but benefit from the shared set up?
If college conferences solidify around "elite" programs and let the others bite the dust, everybody loses. College football loses much appeal if mighty Oklahoma can stay in big time sports but neighboring Kansas cannot....mainly due to the difference in programs (as opposed to even demographic differences).
This rich-gets-richer scheme ends any pretense that college football is an amateur game (which, of course, we know it is not). It makes $$$$ so important that it rules the roost. and if that is the case, why even bother with college sports? Just watch the pro's....they are better and they make no bones about profit being the motive and tradition having no meaning.
College football is what it is because that aura of institution and tradition and the color of the game make it worthwhile, a whole package, far more than just the game on the field. If super conferences come about, this advantage, the greatest the game has, is gone.
So what if the major conferences actually went ahead and came up with a revenue sharing idea. What could it look like and what might it mean?
Let's look at the BCS schools, and those that could be. I'll throw out an arbitrary number of institutions that might be part of this category:
96
Well, not so arbitrary, to be honest, because 96 was chosen by me because of the beauty of its divisibility. It makes it easier to make my point here.
What if all those 96 schools, through their conferences, shared t.v. revenue for an eight team national championship. Let's say that that championship starts with 4 New Years day bowls, two semi-finals, and a championship....seven games whose revenues are split among conferences.
With money being the issue, we're heading, quite possibly, to four super conferences. If that were the case, let's imagine that each of those conferences had 24 teams (ok, i realize that "16" is the desired number today, but for the sake of argument, stay with me).
24 or even 16 teams in a conference just doesn't work. Even with 16 teams, you have two divisions of 8 and each of them plays its divisional foes so much it literally has no relationship with the other division teams. Any sense of commonality and shared membership is destroyed. Revenue rules the game and its suffers.
But what if revenue not the issue due to it being shared. What if you had 8 conferences of 12 teams each. Twelve, too, is delightfully divisible and 12 can create plenty of competition and solidarity as well; and 12 keeps you exactly where you belong: in your neck of the woods. The beauty of eight conferences would that only conference champs could go into a national play off. You have to earn your way in by beating the competition in your group. Wouldn't that make the regular season even more exciting, what with the removal of "wild cards".
Those twelve teams could, very easily (if $$$, again, no longer is the issue) play an 11 game round robin schedule and put divisions to rest (hey, Wisconsin fans, would you rather see the Badgers play Ohio State or North Dakota State. hey, Alabama fans: what's more attractive to you, Bama vs. Florida or Bama vs. Western Kentucky). That gives a 100% pure and legit championship and makes for more exciting and meaningful games for the fans. If two or more teams tie at the end of the regular season, there could be a championship game (with three of more teams meaning some sort of formula.....point differential? head-to-head competition? to determine which two play).
With these smaller conferences, eight in number, the tradition of the game could go on. You play your neighbors. Like god designed the game in the first place. And on New Years Day, the Pac 12 and the Big Ten still meet in the Rose Bowl. The SEC winner can go to the traditional Sugar Bowl. Whatever grouping came out of the old Big 8 country could go to the Orange Bowl. And if they have the guts to replace the Fiesta Bowl with what should be there instead...the Cotton Bowl the area of the old south west would send its champion there.
8 conferences mean coast-to-coast competition. A meaningful championship system leaves no region out of play, made up of totally meaningful conferences that represent their region and have the joy of neighbor (and rival) playing neighbor (and rival). The Rocky Mountain region deserves to have membership, even with its smaller population. Revenue sharing can make this happen.
Giving an equitable piece of the pie to all institutions that are part of the system just makes sense. And it keeps the insanity of profit-for-all-cost at bay. IMHO, this is an idea whose time has come: share revenue and rebuild a sane, logical, and enjoyable college football landscape.
I had thought the Big Ten already does this to a large extent
i think you misunderstood me. I meant revenue sharing among all conferences. Splitting the pot of money earned from broadcasting of all games so that each conference is given the same amount (or just easily, each school gets the same amount).
In other words, when Cal plays Stanford, Duke (as well as every other school in the BCS equivalent) would get the same share of broadcasting that game as Cal and Stanford did.
You know we would need a strong central organization working all this like the pro administrations or the various Football Associations in Europe.
The conferences (in football) seem to be more or less autonomus in day to day life from the NCAA (except during scandal time).
Add to it the free for all type mentality of the Big XII.
If you can't ensure that everyone would do it on a REGIONAL level, imagine the nightmare of having to do it NATIONALLY.
More than that, a lot of people would be incenced that their money which they supposedly "worked so hard for" would go to a "worthless" school like Duke. Look at the Texas vs. the World debacle.
The College Game isn't the Pro Game, there are just farrrrr too many colleges to make it work on a national level. If we were in a smaller country maybe it would work but no.
It's too late to make it work, the financial gatekeeping will continue one because of ease, two because of feared "socialist type meddling" and three because we just can't reasonably expect some schools to catch up even IF they had more money.
It would be very difficult to implement nationwide. With that being said, I think the current debacle that is the Big 12 should be a lesson to every conference that equal revenue sharing within a given conference is the only way to go.
Why should a school with more exposure, more fans/alum, more students have to say hey, I'm going to work the field for 10hrs while your work half as much but I'll give you half of my pay??
Do you do that for your co-worker??
This is not Comy Russia!
I am a Texas fan, with that said, Texas is not to blame for a lot of the Big XII madness.
Had Mr. Smartass Dan Bebee looked at other conferences and took a note out their book we could have avoided a lot of this years madness.
*Also Big Ten Commissinor(forgot his name) talking bout asking Texas to join? Why the heck would Texas join the Big Ten. That I my mind got the ball rolling on this stuff.
Any school in the nation would have jumped at the chance to have a TV deal.
Name one school that wouldn't and you will have named a school that doesn't want to make a name for its self. Keep in mind the LHN is not all about football, folks just make seem like it is.
The fact that we are so focused on what athletic conference our colleges are in is sad, but hey...at least on the weekend the alumni can sit back and brag about how their college kicks butt before heading back to waitress or load trucks at UPS.
Why should a school with more exposure, more fans/alum, more students have to say hey, I'm going to work the field for 10hrs while your work half as much but I'll give you half of my pay??
Why want to share that revenue and make for a flatter playing field?
well, if you dismiss the notion of right-or-wrong and the desirability of dog-eat-dog, I'd go with this, Fast:
THEIR OWN SELF-INTEREST
Unless, of course, the Texases and Notre Dames of the world (ok...forget Notre Dame....that was in the past; where the Irish find themselves unluckily stuck) choose to kill the goose that lays the golden egg.
Texas's athletic health depends on the athletic health of the game. When a program can so dominate the landscape, it takes the oxygen and the interest out of the game itself, very much to the detriment of Texas.
Texas put Nebraska in the Big Ten. Simply put, the Huskers once on board in the Big 12 found it impossible to live with the 800 pound gorillahorn in the room. A&M was willing to give up not only its most traditional rival, UT, but to all of the state of Texas as it moves to the SEC as the only Lone Star representative.
The Pac 12 basically said "_____ you" to Texas and any thought of its admission to the conference.
You can't have your cake and eat it, too, Fast. This is what MLB does and the NFL intelligently avoids. MLB makes places like Kansas City, Pittsburgh, and even Baltimore (which got the whole ballpark revolution going with Camden Yards, a place that nowadays sits half or a quarter filled at best. All this because they just happen to have the disadvantage of being small markets. Do we really want New York to run rings over Pittsburgh just because market size is way smaller. Wouldn't we prefer that when the Mets play the Pirates, it is the ability of their ownership, management, and players that determines who is better, as opposed to how much money they can generate in order to run their programs? How much do the Yankees really accomplish when so much of that accomplishment comes from profits from their Big Apple location?
Doesn't the NFL work so much better in shared revenue that still allows well wrong teams....the Patriots, Steelers, Packers, Cowboys, 49ers, etc. down through the years....to achieve excellence (but earned excellence at that).
There is no surer way to kill interest the game that if the rich get richer and the poor get poorer and 48-0 becomes the typical score. At some point fans will say "ENOUGH".
I've read a lot of comments here that say revenue sharing won't work. I say "why not?" If revenue sharing takes place, it ends the need for the insane competition for conference membership and expansion that now sadly rules the game and heads it for super conference size that will be pure hell when it is played out on the field and in the standings. Be careful what you wish for.
Besides, while college sports make profit, they are not corporations that are in business to make money. No share holders out there. In other words, there is far less pain in revenue sharing than some may think. the universities still make the money off the sport to run the rest of their athletic programs.
And even visibility is not cut down. Revenue sharing will in no way stop Texas, Alabama, USC, Oklahoma, Ohio State, or Michigan from being "A Program". This will still remain will huge stadiums that will be filled, a huge fan base who will buy their merchandise, athletes who will still salivate to play for them. They are going to do just fine, thank you.
In fact, they will do even better on a flatter, saner playing field where $$$$$$$ is removed as the main motivator. Reduce money as an issue, keep conferences competitive with each other without that money issue and suddenly you will see the end of real cupcake scheduling and more intraconference games. Florida sees a game with LSU instead of UL-Lafayette, Michigan plays Wisconsin instead of Ball State, etc.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
