Thoughts on Revenue Sharing?

by Brian Floyd on May 23, 2009 9:56 PM PDT

Summary:

Woodward has come out publicly supporting revenue sharing for the pac-10. At the moment, the pac-10 has a form of revenue sharing but Woodward is arguing for schools to share revenue generated from football. Essentially, it would help level the playing field for all schools. We garner, as expected, the lowest TV revenue in the pac-10 by about a quarter million. USC, on the other hand, earns more than double what we do in.

More interesting points from the article include: Oregon state generates the third most TV revenue while Oregon is in at 7th; UW made about 340,000 and 445,000 for the last two apple cups in pullman while WSU made just over a million a piece for the last two apple cups in Seattle.

Thoughts:

Tom Hanson mentions that it takes 8 votes to change the rule. USC and UCLA probably will not vote for it since they are holding the lions share of TV and football revenue. Do you think this is a good idea and do you think it would have a shot at passing?

This FanPost does not necessarily reflect the views of the site's writers or editors, who may not have verified its accuracy. It does, however, reflect the views of this particular fan, which is just as important as the views of our writers or editors.

Tweet Comment 5 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Good idea...can't see it passing

I think this would be a great step. In my mind, one reason the Pac 10 is seen as weak nationally is USC’s dominance. Revenue sharing could help bring up the rest of the conference by allowing them to compete financially with USC.

I see USC and UCLA being definate no’s, as it hurts them the most. I see UA as a possible no, since this opens the door to sharing basketball revenue and that could damage them, although I’m not sure where they are on ticket sales/tv money for basketball compared to the rest of the conference.

by 02Coug on May 24, 2009 10:56 AM PDT reply actions

Anyone else surprised that Woodward supports this idea?

Wouldn’t it hurt UW more than help them?

It seems like a good idea to me.

I also agree that USC and UCLA would have nothing to do with this. Those two schools have too much power in the conference in my opinion.

by westsidecougar1 on May 24, 2009 12:10 PM PDT reply actions

A little surprised, but...

I think it helps them to get on an even playing field.

If the focus is football, while the UW is in the top half of the conference in revenue, they can’t compete with USC under the current model (really, few can). And UCLA is always a threat if they can find a way to win and for a whole season. To have two schools in a huge media market with no pro football team puts the whole conference at a bit of a disadvantage.

So to summarize, while it might not dramatically increase the money in UW’s coffers, it does equal a playing field that is shifted towards the LA schools under the current model.

by 02Coug on May 24, 2009 3:02 PM PDT up reply actions

Woodie seems desperate

I was more than a little surprised. It would definitely help WSU and only one of the conference “haves” could make the request. I do’t see it going through. The conference already shares over half the revenue. The interesting thing is the UW has always had a problem with WSU getting more than they should because of the current deal. Now WSU would stand to get even more.

I don’t know if I have ever heard an AD in the news as much as Woodie has been this year.

by BornCoug on May 26, 2009 5:02 PM PDT up reply actions

Woodward also wants to repeal the “rivalry game” exception on Pac-10 conference game revenue splits. Currently, Pac-10 games require a minimum $125K payout and cap out at a maximum $200K payout. Given that these figures were set a long time ago, effectively every Pac-10 road team picks up a $200K check for conference games. The exception is for the rivalry games – in those cases, the gate is split evenly. For most rivalries, that’s not a big deal as revenues are fairly similar for each stadium, but for the Apple Cup this arrangement greatly favors WSU.

Woodward supports revenue sharing of TV money, but only if the rivalry game exception is also revoked. In that scenario, things are close to a wash for the UW. Even so, it seems most of my fellow Husky fans are against the idea. Me, I’d want to see more concrete details and here about what possible benefits revenue sharing could lead to, i.e. increased cooperation among the conference schools that could lead to better TV deals, bowl games, corporate sponsorships, advertising, etc.

by kirkd on May 29, 2009 10:32 PM PDT up reply actions