- Thread starter
- #1
LMAO at this thread.
TEXAS DOES NOT DECIDE THE REVENUE SHARING MODEL.
It's a conference decision, and EVERY member has a vote. Texas cant force other schools to vote against it.
I LOVE how people seem to think that somehow Texas controls everyone else's vote.
Kansas to the Pac-10 doesn't make any sense. And don't pretend it's about basketball, if they wanted the best basketball conference they would go to the ACC. There are 2 good programs in the Pac-10.
What was OU's vote on revenue sharing when ESPN signed the contract with Texas for the LHN?
Instead of negotiating their own network deal, they should have took the lead and negotiated a BIG XII network deal with ESPN but no, "We're Texas!" and fuck everyone else.
Get with the program, you know wtf we are talking about.
Well basicly every other conference has a revenue sharing plan.
Texas is the last hold out. Just like they were one of the last hold outs to let Blacks play for their school.
Time to change Texas. If you are willing to go to the PAC-Whatever, the B1G which I think you would, you going to have to share there so time to end your fucking greedy ways as wanting to make 100 billion a year and work with the rest of us to find a replacement for aTm, Neb and Colorado.
Ooh and OU will take care of Dan Beebe and that fuck will be working concessions next year in Montana.
LMAO at this thread.
TEXAS DOES NOT DECIDE THE REVENUE SHARING MODEL.
It's a conference decision, and EVERY member has a vote. Texas cant force other schools to vote against it.
I LOVE how people seem to think that somehow Texas controls everyone else's vote.
Why is everybody so worried about equal revenue sharing? Face it, it does nothing to foster parity or competitiveness in a conference. Indiana and Northwestern still suck at football in the Big 10, Duke and UVA suck in the ACC, Vandy and Ole Miss still stink it up in the SEC. So what's the big deal? It does nothing but make the lower schools feel better or what? If that is the case why did NU leave, and why is A&M leaving, they weren't really the worst...they're just throwing a hissy fit is all.
Why is everybody so worried about equal revenue sharing? Face it, it does nothing to foster parity or competitiveness in a conference. Indiana and Northwestern still suck at football in the Big 10, Duke and UVA suck in the ACC, Vandy and Ole Miss still stink it up in the SEC. So what's the big deal? It does nothing but make the lower schools feel better or what? If that is the case why did NU leave, and why is A&M leaving, they weren't really the worst...they're just throwing a hissy fit is all.
That's exactly right, and that's exactly why you should do it.
1-2 million isn't a lot in the grand scheme of things for most teams, but it does make a difference for some. Even more important is, it puts the entire conference on equal footing so far as the conference's revenue is concerned.
It's one thing if Florida makes millions more every year due to our ticket sales and merchandising, it's a completely different thing if we're getting a larger chunk of the SEC pie, as being part of a conference should have equal benefits for all.
In truth, equal revenue sharing takes little from schools like Texas, Ohio State, Florida etc and the goodwill it promotes within the smaller schools is well worth it imo.
Look what it's done to the Big 12, create schisms and factions within the conference and all for what? Pocket change at that level.
You actually expect us to believe that Texas doesn't control the vote? Politics man. Politics.