[Goose]

I disagree about the inherent instability of unequal revenue sharing and would actually argue the opposite. As long as there are schools doing the heavy lifting in terms of eyeballs, prime TV slots, etc but getting the same money as Northwestern and Vanderbilt, there will be those thinking they can and should be doing better. In my view the rapidly growing pie has quelled these concerns.

It would seem we agree on the pie growing dispelling the belief that "some should be more equal than others".

But once the pie stops growing and taboo/tradition have already been destroyed; it's anyone's game. Plenty of leagues (like MLB) have shown you can have unequal TV money and still compete.


I foresee a world in which there are 2-3 super conferences where revenue is divvied by a formula which gives all schools some baseline plus big bonus pay outs based on viewership, TV slot selection, etc.

The big difference between professional teams and universities is that professional teams are only concerned with their team and it's welfare, competitively and financially. Universities are not in that condition. Athletics is only one of the conglomerate's interests. As long as athletics is bringing in more money from an increasing pie, and as long as competition is viewed as "equal", nobody much cares. So, when the pie starts to shrink and athletics says "we are supposed to accept a 15% cut, Alabama took no cut", the university administration will simply not be willing to accept that. To do so, they have to admit they are second-class citizens. Better to say no. There is no way the conference can throw us out if we "bottom feeders" stick together. When that happens, you will get your described "super conferences", but in them everyone will be "equal". Universities don't make decisions like NFL/MLB teams do. They may accept temporary inequalities in order to make more money, but not permanent, structural ones. Too many ego's involved for that.

Ironically while this would be bad for northwestern and Purdue, it would be good for Stanford since it may reduce resistance to expansion of the big conferences since there would be less risk of dilution of the pie.

I want to be a fly on the wall when a proposal that Stanford join a conference where they would forever make less money than the "elite" members because "nobody" watches their games is presented. I don't think that proposal would last for a nanosecond.

[Goose]

I disagree about the inherent instability of unequal revenue sharing and would actually argue the opposite. As long as there are schools doing the heavy lifting in terms of eyeballs, prime TV slots, etc but getting the same money as Northwestern and Vanderbilt, there will be those thinking they can and should be doing better. In my view the rapidly growing pie has quelled these concerns.

It would seem we agree on the pie growing dispelling the belief that "some should be more equal than others".

But once the pie stops growing and taboo/tradition have already been destroyed; it's anyone's game. Plenty of leagues (like MLB) have shown you can have unequal TV money and still compete.


I foresee a world in which there are 2-3 super conferences where revenue is divvied by a formula which gives all schools some baseline plus big bonus pay outs based on viewership, TV slot selection, etc.

The big difference between professional teams and universities is that professional teams are only concerned with their team and it's welfare, competitively and financially. Universities are not in that condition. Athletics is only one of the conglomerate's interests. As long as athletics is bringing in more money from an increasing pie, and as long as competition is viewed as "equal", nobody much cares. So, when the pie starts to shrink and athletics says "we are supposed to accept a 15% cut, Alabama took no cut", the university administration will simply not be willing to accept that. To do so, they have to admit they are second-class citizens. Better to say no. There is no way the conference can throw us out if we "bottom feeders" stick together. When that happens, you will get your described "super conferences", but in them everyone will be "equal". Universities don't make decisions like NFL/MLB teams do. They may accept temporary inequalities in order to make more money, but not permanent, structural ones. Too many ego's involved for that.

Ironically while this would be bad for northwestern and Purdue, it would be good for Stanford since it may reduce resistance to expansion of the big conferences since there would be less risk of dilution of the pie.

I want to be a fly on the wall when a proposal that Stanford join a conference where they would forever make less money than the "elite" members because "nobody" watches their games is presented. I don't think that proposal would last for a nanosecond.