Interesting thought (Pac-9 related)

[Dresden_Stormblessed]

As I understand it, those in the PAC equally distribute the $ earned between the schools.

Why doesn’t the conference pay-out to the schools that bring in the most views? i.e. the conference only makes money if the schools bring in the eye-balls right? The school is compensated for the eye-balls they attract.

There’s got to be some incentivized structure where the schools that do the best, get the most. Would that be the right thing to do?

College football is top-heavy enough as is.

[Roy Rangum]

Been thinking the same thing myself. The old days of taking stability for granted are gone. If you want top schools to stick around, you have to make it worth their while.

[UteThunder]

Would you still be in favor of this idea if USC and UCLA hadn’t left?

Unequal revenue distribution makes it harder for teams in your conference to compete with the big dogs, which ultimately hurts your conference.

[UteBacker]

I don’t love the idea of unequal revenue distribution, but I would totally be open for those teams that generate revenue from the post season (March Madness, bowl games, etc) receiving a larger share (say, 50% to them and 50% split between the rest of the schools).  There has to be some reward for those programs that do it right.  Something like this might also keep Oregon and Washington from bolting the conference.  

[Roy Rangum]

If we had done this sooner, I think there’s a decent chance USC and UCLA would have stayed. People / schools want to be paid what they are worth, and if one conference isn’t going to pay it, nowadays schools are more than happy to find a different conference who will pay them what they are worth.

If the pac12 had unequal revenue sharing and USC and UCLA stayed, while yes those schools would have gotten more, everyone else benefits too. How much money are Oregon state and Washington State going to get on their own if the pac12 entirely collapses? A rising tide lifts all ships, and being in a good conference with unequal revenue sharing sounds a whole lot better to me than being in a garbage conference with equal revenue sharing.

Moreover, I get that equal revenue improves parity, but frankly, parity has been killing the PAC12 for decades. To be a successful conference, You need a few teams that are the best of the best, a few teams in the middle, and then other teams that are punching bags.

[UteThunder]

I don’t think we could have given USC enough to stay without completely undercutting the rest of the conference to the point that everyone other than USC, Oregon, & Washington would be pulling in a G5 paycheck. They are going to make more than double, possibly even triple, what they were getting in the Pac-12.

And it isn’t parity that has been killing the Pac-12. It is the 9 game conference schedule, guaranteeing half of the conference an additional loss every year, coupled with the lack of non-conference wins and bowl wins. 

[krindor]

Here’s the issue…how do you determine who gets unequal revenue?

I have all sorts of stats and data and the best teams in the PAC (over the last decade) have been

1. Oregon, 2. USC, 3. Utah, 4. Washington, 5. Stanford, 6. UCLA, 7. Washington St, 8. Arizona St, 9. Cal, 10. Colorado, 11. Arizona, 12. Oregon St

By viewership (over the past 5 not including CCG and bowls) it’s

1. Oregon, 2. USC, 3. Washington, 4. UCLA, 5. Stanford, 6. Utah (barely behind Stanford, effectively tied), 7. Washington St, 8. Arizona St, 9. Colorado, 10. Cal, 11. Arizona, 12. Oregon St

And yet UCLA got a B1G invite when Washington and Oregon didn’t. Arizona St is widely seen as more desirable than Washington St. So do you just base on market size always give extra to UCLA or Arizona St? Or do they have to get viewers/wins to get that extra?

[Tony (admin)]

Wouldn’t this create an infinite loop of the haves and have nots in terms of revenue, facilities, recruiting etc? 

[Roy Rangum]

Let me phrase this is a different way:

There has always been and will always be unequal revenue sharing among college football teams. Historically and currently, unequal revenue sharing is happening between conferences and not within a conference. (The SEC/B10 make more than the B12/PAC12 make more than G5, etc.) Any faults or concerns you may have with unequal revenue sharing already exist.

What I’m suggesting is that having unequal revenue sharing within a conference may be preferable to unequal revenue sharing between different conferences. If you share revenue unequally within a conference, regional ties are maintained and the success of one program in a region can help lift other nearby teams in the same conference too. As it stands currently, with unequal revenue sharing between conferences, the best schools are just going to join together and leave everyone else in the dust.

[Extra Medium]

Not a fan on unequal revenue share because every confernce has 2nd tier progams that serve a purpose. Getting beat every year is a noble existance. Ask the Washington Generals. 

[//r00t4Utes]

Unequal revenue sharing is what Texas had with their Longhorn network, and they still bolted to the SEC.

As I mentioned in another post, it’s also why several teams left between 2010 and 2013, being Nebraska, Missouri, Colorado and Texas A&M.

Again if they can survive that with more losing Texas and Oklahoma, there’s absolutely no reason the PAC12 can’t.

Not saying this hasn’t hurt the PAC and not everything is the same, like the XII actively trying to ruin the PAC for its own survival, for example.

[Author]

Posts