The Devil



This Tiger was not at the bar. 
But he's cute!

Last week, I met up with Kacie and Debra at The Opio Bar at the Park Cities Hilton.  Whilst consuming our happy hour libations, we noticed a lot of Missouri Tigers infiltrating the lobby. 

Come to find out, it was some kind of recruiting or information session.  I stood to chat with one of the stragglers after the event who told me that the head football and basketball coaches had been there, along with many alumni, etc. 

In the course of this conversation, I told the gentleman how much fun we always have we go to Columbia for games, which ultimately led me to tell him I was a Texas fan.  To which he responded:

“Well, you’re the reason we left. You didn’t want to share.” 

Sigh.

A few things came to mind after he made that comment, the first being “I’m sure that the administration at Missouri is thrilled that you’ve just said that to me, while at an event promoting the school, wearing a hard plastic, permanent Missouri name tag, and speaking on their behalf.”

Secondly, I’ve wanted for a long time to address the whole revenue sharing thing in the Big XII and the role it played in conference realignment.

If you’re asking your computer right now “what the hell is she talking about?!” I will stop and give you a brief little summary:

When the Big XII was born in 1996, all the schools entered into the conference with the understanding that 57% of all the 1^st and 2^nd tier money made by the Big XII from TV contracts, bowl games, the NCAA, licensing, merchandise and conference-host event was to be split evenly among the Big XII teams.  The remaining 43% would be distributed based on the amount of appearances each team made on TV, with weight added based on the importance of the game (ie, a BCS Championship weighing more than a conference championship and a conference championship weighing more than a regular season game, etc).

For the next 15 years, this model was voted on every year.  The 2011 annual meeting vote resulted in a change of the percentages, with 76% being divided equally and 24% distributed based on individual appearances. 

Why 2011?  Because Nebraska, who never voted for a more equal distribution of revenue left the conference.  Ironically to go to a conference that has completely equal revenue sharing.  

Okay, okay.  It wasn’t just Nebraska.  To be fair, Texas, Nebraska, Oklahoma and Texas A&M have historically been against 100% sharing of 1^st and 2^nd tier rights.  Also note, the new model was proposed by Texas.

It’s interesting to note that in 2007, 1^st & 2^nd tier media rights were distributed (in millions) as follows:

Texas: 10.2
Oklahoma: 9.8
Kansas: 9.24
Texas A&M: 9.22
Nebraska: 9.1
Missouri: 8.4
Texas Tech: 8.23
Kansas State: 8.21
Oklahoma State: 8.1
Colorado: 8.0
Iowa State: 7.4
Baylor: 7.1

The difference between the most and least money distributed was $3.1 million.   If the revenue had been split equally, the swing would have been Texas -1.61 million to Baylor 1.48 million.  I’d like to note here that Nebraska would have made .51 million less if the revenue sharing was equal. 

And the school that prompted this post?  They would have received a whopping $180,000 more.  Yes, that unequal revenue sharing really screwed Missouri over, didn’t it?   

If Texas had not been in the conference, how much money would have been made by each school?  The Big XII was designed with the intention of unequal revenue sharing.  It’s not a new concept for any of the schools involved, and was initially implemented with the reasoning that equal sharing probably wouldn’t seem as appealing to the rest of the league if they really sat down and looked at the numbers of how much revenue would be produced if Nebraska, Texas and Oklahoma weren’t bringing in the dough.  

Now, let’s look at this little gem: in 2007, at least* SIX TEAMS in the Big XII made more money than Texas through 3^rd tier media rights. And not just by a little:

Kansas  $7,276,988
Oklahoma State: $6,395,000
Nebraska: $4,393,529
Missouri: $4,081,549
Kansas State: $3,263,941
Iowa State: $2,608,896
Texas: $338,171
Oklahoma: $317,361
Colorado: $155,528*Baylor, A&M & Texas Tech did not have data I could find

As you can see, Kansas, the school with the most third-tier media revenue made almost 22 times more money on them than Texas.  Missouri, the school which prompted this blog, made just over 12 times more money in third-tier media than the Longhorns.  Though Texas generates more money than any other program in college sports, they were ranked 37^th (in available data) in third-tier rights.

3^rd tier rights have always been exclusive to the school.  Frankly, where does it end?  Should Texas be required to split up the revenue for the season tickets they sell?  Should every profit for a crimson shirt be divided equally among the conference?   Should every school have to absorb the cost of Ralphie’s calorie intake?

On a scarier note, if a student from (unnamed school) gets engaged to a sheep, do all the schools have to pay for the ring?

"Will you ma-a-arry me-e-e?"

What I find most interesting about the entire conversation about revenue sharing, is that until the Longhorn Network began to look like a reality, there was no conversation about 3^rd tier rights.  3^rd tier rights were not a part of the discussion until the details of the mega-deal with the LHN were beginning to surface. 

In fact…let’s take a peeksie at the numbers for 2007* (in millions) when you add together the Big XII revenue payouts with each school’s 3rd tier rights: 

Kansas: 16.54
Oklahoma State: 14.5
Nebraska: 13.5
Missouri: 12.5
Kansas State: 11.5
Texas: 10.5
Oklahoma: 10.2
Iowa State: 10.0
Colorado: 9.2
*note, I did not have 3^rd tier data on Texas Tech, Texas A&M or Baylor.

Well…isn’t that interesting. 

The media, schools and fans of schools who are not Texas are putting a lot of blame on Texas for the realignment.  Let’s remember – it would have taken only nine members of the conference to vote for a change in the revenue sharing structure.   Texas has one vote.  They cannot be held solely responsible for any decisions made or not made in the Big XII.

In all of the articles I read and conversations I hear, I rarely hear about current third tier rights.  I hear about the Longhorn Network a lot.  I hear that Texas is greedy and evil a lot. I hear a lot of blame and finger pointing.  But I never hear about how Texas has been on the bottom of the scale for 3^rd tier rights for a long time, and has never asked anyone else to share their loot. 

If A&M or Colorado or (gasp!) Missouri had created a network with such big numbers, would they still be clamoring to share 3^rd tier rights? 

To say Texas “doesn’t want to share” isn’t really the truth.  The truth is that no one wanted to share until the numbers got really big.  Texas has been vilified for scoring big.  

In short: Members of the Big XII were/are not interested in sharing 3^rd tier media rights. They’re interested in Texas sharing Texas’ 3^rd tier media rights.

"That's Right! I'm the Devil!"

Any Longhorn who tries to say that Texas isn’t the villain, or that tries to make the point for a more logical look at the facts (oh no, not the facts) is labeled as ‘arrogant’ and ‘greedy’.  There’s no way to win.  In fact, it’s gotten to the point where when guys like Mr. Mizzou Alumni make comments like that, I generally just agree by chiming in that “Texas is the Devil!” I will then do an Elaine Devil Face and make a scary sound.  Depending on my mood, I will then go on to blame all natural disasters, the Bay of Pigs Crisis and “Dirty Dancing: Havana Nights” on Texas as well.  Nobody seems to like that very much either...it's a situation where I'm damned if I do and I'm damned if I don't...

…but knowing Bevo doesn’t have to share his $300 million dollars really does take the sting out of it.


Everyone wants Bevo's Bucks!