A Little More on Revenue Sharing

This Big 12 revenue sharing horse has been beaten to death the last couple weeks, so I'm really hoping to start moving on to new topics soon. However, Wendell Barnhouse of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram had to drop his $.02 in, so I feel obliged to respond. I contacted Mr. Barnhouse via email, but he has not responded.

Essentially, Barnhouse asserts that revenue sharing is a "nonissue" for the Big 12. At first I wondered what planet he lives on, but then I realized he lives in Texas, just as I do. In Texas, revenue sharing is generally a nonissue, except to the extent that UT and A&M don't want to give up "their" money. For the eight conference schools not named UT, A&M, OU or NU, it is absolutely an issue. The smaller eight schools get a smaller cut of the Big 12 money each year, which leads to a self-perpetuating system where the big guys get more money, buy fancier toys, and maintain what they see as the rightful order of things (to use Nebraska language).

Barnhouse severely misstates the argument when he writes:

Leveling the Big 12's financial playing field is impossible considering the money-making potential of football stadiums at Texas, A&M, Oklahoma and Nebraska. Those four schools can generate crowds that are consistently nearly double that of other conference schools.

The whole point of this is not to allow Iowa State to spend as much money on athletics as Texas. That will never happen. There's no way Iowa State is going to make up that $52 million gap. The point is, conference revenue is not the property of any individual program, and should be shared equally.

A few things about this strike me. For one, the big schools claim it's "their" money, so they're rightfully entitled to keep it. Barnhouse refers to it as sharing the money "equitably, not evenly." I don't buy that as an accurate characterization of the issue. The TV appearances made by these schools are a result of the CONFERENCE'S TV deal. You may notice it's called the Big 12 TV contract, not the Longhorns' TV contract, or the Aggies' TV contract, or the Sooners' TV contract, or the Cornhuskers' TV contract. ABC and FSN contract with the Big 12 to show its games. Now granted, most of those games the last few years have been UT and OU games. A lot of them have also been NU and A&M games, although UT and OU are clearly the kings of the conference as far as TV goes.

The point is, there's no requirement in the Big 12 TV contract that UT or OU or A&M or NU be on TV a certain number of times. It's just so happened that in the last few years, the Longhorns and Sooners, et al, have been the best teams, ergo TV wants more of their games. So the TV money generated by the Big 12 is exactly that, it's the Big 12's money. As such, it should be shared equally among all members.

I know it's an easy argument in a capitalist society to say the money should go to those who earned it, but a college athletic conference is not a purely capitalist endeavor. We have 12 schools that have banded together for the common good. Sharing things equally isn't exactly a foreign concept, we do it with most of the revenue, with the exception of 50 percent of the TV money...and as mentioned before, that TV money is about to get a whole lot bigger, meaning the gap between the haves and have-lots of the Big 12 is about to get bigger as well.

And lest the big four schools forget, the conference hasn't always been aligned as it is. Texas went 4-7 in 1997. Oklahoma didn't have a winning record in the Big 12 until 1999. Texas A&M went 6-6 twice, 4-8 once and 5-6 once. Nebraska went 7-7 in 2002 and 5-6 in 2004. Bad days like that could come back around, and these schools could be looking at the short end of the stick for some time (all it takes is the wrong coach(ing staff).

I guess I just don't get the idea of a conference in which the philosophy is to allow certain members to aggrandize themselves at the expense of the other member institutions. In some ways, it already has come back to bite those teams in the butt. If the Big 12 turns into the Big 4 and the Little 8, the strength of schedule of all member institutions suffers, which makes it harder for the conference teams to compete for national titles.

One final thought on this for the schools who complain that it would be thoroughly unfair for them to share the conference's revenue with the other member institutions. If you get mad about this, mad enough to drop the Big 12, where are you going to go? And is it really worth it to go through the hassle of changing conferences over this? Here's how much money each school would have lost to equal revenue sharing based on the 2005-06 figures:

Texas: $2.13 million
Oklahoma: $1.59 million
Texas A&M: $730,000
Nebraska: $310,000
Colorado: $140,000

There aren't necessarily a lot of great options. The SEC (assuming it wants to expand/change membership) splits all its revenue equally, although they also make more money than the Big 12. The Big 10 (again, assuming it's not still holding out for Notre Dame) shares all its revenue equally. As far as I know, the Pac-10 is the only other major conference that doesn't share all revenue equally.

Finally, an analogy that I hope will put this in perspective. Major League Baseball does not have equal revenue sharing or a salary cap. The National Football League does. It's easy to name the dominant teams in MLB, it's the Boston Red Sox and the New York Yankees. They're practically the only teams on TV, and the primary teams who are talked about that. Contrast that with the NFL. You can't name a single, dominant team in the NFL. You're fine with the MLB situation if you're a Yankees or Red Sox fan, but the vast majority of the nation's baseball fans are not Yankees or Red Sox fans. In the NFL, fans of every team feel like they have a shot, or at least the opportunity to get a shot, at the playoffs/Super Bowl. One makes for a good product with satisfied fans who can root for a contender. The other makes for cynical fans who get turned off by two teams' domination of the sport.

Those 'other schools' in the Big 12 care about this issue. You should too. Just take a step behind the veil of ignorance and don't forget: it could be you.