Quote:
Originally Posted by beer bacon
What you are saying is only partly true. Under the old revenue sharing system, a school's payout was determined by TV appearances. In that system, Missouri was doing quite well and was earning more than Tech or A&M. If the St. Louis Post Dispatch is accurate, MU will earn less despite outperforming Tech and Ok. State in recent years.
|
But, maybe that's part of the problem, we're content to do fine. As you stated, we don't yet know the details of how it works. For example, let's say Missouri (in the third tier) has an exceptional year, while the second tier schools have lesser years. The money that would have gone to them now goes to you, and although you may not be able to make more, you may make the maximum in your tier and they may make the floor of theirs, making the payout maybe even less than a million dollars difference. If you can sustain excellence, you can push for a better deal, not only because you have proven your worth to the league, but also because you have made yourself attractive to others. Even Self says they haven't "dotted all the i's and crossed all the t's yet, so we should wait to see how revenues are actually distributed.
We have to remember, its not just the schools, each stat'e board of regents also has their says. So even if they aren't Texas and OU, the BOR of those states made sure the leverage they had extended to all of its state schools. I would expect that if basketball were the dominant revenue generator, KU would have done the same for KSu at that state's BOR request.