Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Waverod's avatar

I like this, and something like the revenue sharing is probably the only way to get stability, regionally based conferences, and sane road trips for non-revenue sports. No doubt I'd tweak some things here or there, but that's not worth a debate at this point. The difficulty, though, with revenue sharing, is being able to coordinate it without running afoul of NCAA vs Board of Regents of University of Oklahoma from 1984, which ended the NCAA's control of football TV rights. I would think that, by having six separate packages, the antitrust issues in that case might be avoided, but that's basically assuming that the schools and conferences involved are all on board with the coordinating body (which wouldn't be the NCAA; they basically don't care about the details of conference membership) and the revenue sharing plan. I could easily see the Big Ten, say, claiming that because they bring far more value than the MAC, they could earn more revenue by bidding separately, and the revenue sharing would be an unfair restraint of trade.

In many ways, it was this court case, and the subsequent decline of the College Football Association formed to sell rights in bulk, that led to the various waves of realignment. Penn State joined the Big Ten in 1990, and Arkansas and South Carolina joined the SEC in 1991. That same year the Big East started sponsoring football, adding Miami (FL) and several football-only members.

Tom's avatar

Send this to the commissioners and school presidents.

1 more comment...

No posts

Ready for more?