Pac-12 revenue sharing on the table at conference meetings
by Brian Floyd on Jul 18, 2010 9:50 AM PDT
in The Pac-10
108 comments
The biggest debate at the conference meetings -- especially pertaining to Washington State -- will come when revenue sharing in the new Pac-12 is discussed. The current Pac-10 model is a hybrid model, with schools pocketing the majority of the TV appearance money they make and spreading the rest throughout the conference. That appears to be on the way out, to the extreme benefit of WSU.
Take it away, Bud Withers.
Why is it an issue now? Assuming Washington and WSU end up in a division separate from USC and UCLA, they're going to meet those schools less frequently in football. When that happens, by definition they're going to be disadvantaged monetarily, because of the TV appeal of the L.A. schools.
We all know the alignment and scheduling debates at the conference meetings will be hot button issues. The underlying reason alignment is such a huge deal is exactly what Withers describe. Assuming a geographic alignment, the North schools are cutoff from the revenue that SoCal provides. No matter what happens, a divisional split gives UCLA and USC a monetary advantage because the rest of the conference won't have a piece of both every year.
What does it take for the Pac-12 to split revenue equally? It's simple, really, but in the past one school has kept the deal off the table.
Turns out Washington is a key player. It takes an 8-2 vote in the Pac-10 to implement financial policy, and the L.A. schools form a coalition. Moos remembers a steady stream of "no" votes to revenue sharing through the 1990s and beyond from UW athletic director Barbara Hedges, killing the notion.
Shocker. Three votes used to kill the deal and the swing vote has been Washington. I don't blame the L.A. schools for always voting no. They can use their location to their benefit and gain a leg up on the rest of the competition.
UW, on the other hand, had a run of success and operates in a profitable Seattle market. All of a sudden, an 0-12 season hits and the tune changes.
But times changed, football turned bleak at the UW and shared money began looking good. Woodward favors revenue sharing, if the league will also do away with an archaic policy of traditional rivals sharing their football gate, which hurts the Huskies more than anybody.
The times are a changing. After falling on tough times, it became apparent how TV money can be fickle outside of the L.A. market. Of course since Martin Stadium is nowhere near comparable in revenue to Husky Stadium, Woodward wants to do away with sharing rivalry gates if the conference goes to equal TV revenue sharing.
"Essentially, I subsidize Wazzu to the tune of about 400 grand a year," Woodward said. "If we're going to share revenue with them, I want that to go away."
It's actually $300,000 or so, but who's counting. Although I do love rivalry games being split evenly, if that's what it takes to do this, we will gladly give it up. A $300,000 loss compared to the millions gained -- not to mention the equal playing field -- is a small price to pay.
Finally, expansion made it much harder for the L.A. schools to keep the current model around.
Now, with the expanded Pac-10, there are two new sheriffs in town. Well, deputies anyway. They have immediate voting rights on this issue, and presumably, they'll be of the equal-share persuasion. As always, it will take a 75 percent, 9-3 vote to change the formula, but that means the L.A. schools need to find not one, but two allies.
Even if Washington decides they like the current way, another vote is still needed. What we may see is some serious posturing during the meetings.
Schools fighting for certain alignments or ways of scheduling could band together in the voting and hold veto power (California schools, perhaps). While not likely, it's impossible to tell what's going to happen in conference meetings that are shaping up to be fairly volatile.
The Cougs stand to benefit the most from an equal distribution of TV money, and it's not even close when compared to the rest of the conference. This is an issue Bill Moos will clearly be pushing, more than alignment and scheduling. In the bigger picture, divisions and intra-conference games are the small issue. Equal revenue sharing has the potential to change the conference -- and change it in a good way -- for the foreseeable future.
0 recs |
108 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Even as an 'SC fan
I think something along the lines of equal sharing is a good thing. The Big XII experiment failed so I think keeping stability even at the coast of a few million annually isn’t the worst thing in the world by any stretch.
On a side note, how does the Big Ten share revenue? Is it done equally or not?
Follow me on twitter @Joey_Kaufman
That Woodward statement is ridiculous
How ’bout we just stop playing Apple Cups in Seattle? Obviously the opponent has nothing to do with how well a game draws…
Here’s a question, Woody: how much money would UW make if you replaced the Apple Cup with a nonconference tussle against Idaho?
It’s like the sense of entitlement and delusions of grandeur from the Husky fanbase float right on up to the athletic director. And they’re still to scared to play Gonzaga on the road.
Now having said that, it's a fair concession if we go to revenue sharing
Where WSU would stand to gain more than anyone else…
The Woodward statement got me the most in that article
And UW wonders why they’re considered arrogant.
by Brian Floyd on Jul 18, 2010 1:48 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
Well, yeah, WSU stands to benefit the most. And,
the Cougs have been taking it in the shorts for a long time. Who needs it as much? We’ve got to build our conference from top to bottom. Balance the revenues.
A new/better/very much improved TV contract is going to help, but in the spirit of conference pride, the petty bullshit needs to stop.
I’d like to see a stadium improvement plan for Martin on the table by the end of the year.
"If you can't copy 'em, don't imitate ''em."
YOGI BERRA
There has been a stadium improvement plan for several years.
CougCenter WSU's second main blog
by Craig Powers on Jul 18, 2010 8:32 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
It is still in the works.
by well you win some and lose others on Jul 18, 2010 8:33 PM PDT up reply actions
On the backburner, though
We’d probably all rather see a better product — driven by facilities improvements to better lure athletes — than an immediate stadium upgrade.
Luckily we do have the plans done and can easily restart the funding drive whenever it’s deemed necessary.
Get real Grady. Why should “rivalry” games have a split gate when every other conference game doesn’t? Yeah, the Apple Cup draws well in Husky Stadium – so do the Oregon games. So do games with USC. So do any ranked opponents.
Your hate-on for Woodward is laughable – he’s the guy that started pushing for equal revenue sharing as soon as he got the job, pointing out that’s how it was done in SEC country where he came from.
If Woodward were the jerk you think he is, he’d push to keep things the way they are; yeah, it would hurt the UW a bit, but it would hurt WSU far more. Instead, he’s pushing for something that will have about as much positive impact for WSU athletics as is reasonably possible (short of adding Texas to the conference) and you still attempt to trash him.
You stay classy Grady.
This quote right here is arrogant
“Essentially, I subsidize Wazzu to the tune of about 400 grand a year,” Woodward said. “If we’re going to share revenue with them, I want that to go away.”
This is Woodward making a power play, not pushing for equal revenue sharing.
Is Oregon crying because they do the same for OS? No they are not. They “subsidize” OS in the Civil War to the same tune as the Apple Cup.
Don’t sit here and say Woodward is great and all for revenue sharing when he attaches stipulations. Trying to throw weight around isn’t something I’m going to praise. And honestly, I don’t care if equal gate sharing goes away, either.
I gotta say...
Woodward using “I” in that sentence makes me want to bitch slap him.
Carry on.
by TiltingRight on Jul 18, 2010 6:01 PM PDT up reply actions
So let me see if I’ve got this straight – you’re in favor of equal revenue sharing where it benefits you guys (by far) the most (TV revenue), but complain when Woodward also wants equal revenue sharing in the area that hurts you guys the most (rivalry game gate splits).
In other words, you want your cake and want to eat it too. Or at the very least, you’re going to complain about Woodward if he proposes true, equal revenue sharing.
You guys are usually pretty reasonable and level-headed about issues without devolving into pure Husky hate, but on this issue you are being extremely homeristic and petty.
Woodward is pushing for something that will benefit your school by far the most of any other in the conference, and you still are complaining about him. And Cougs say Husky fans are arrogant…
Huh?
He’s not proposing true equal revenue sharing. That would be the SEC way. The way where they split gates, postseason money, and TV revenue equally.
What Woodward is saying is that he’ll back off the longtime stance of UW — preventing equal TV revenue sharing in the conference — if the conference also drops sharing rivalry gates.
Like I said, his quote irks me and that’s it. I’m not whining about the gate and have made it clear — both in the article and comments — that I’d rather have equal TV money than a rivalry game split.
I'm sort of with you
More than anything, I just find the quote humorous. Whether he’s being a pompous ass is certainly debatable; whether he sounds like a pompous ass is pretty clear cut.
He could have chosen a lot of ways to say this. His choice of the word “subsidize” makes him sound like a jerk.
And I think that’s funny.
And really, the quote isn't the point of the article
The point is it seems the conference is headed toward equal sharing and the votes stop it aren’t there after following the expansion round.
I don’t know Woodward and can’t say if he is pompous or arrogant. The quote raised my eyebrows, but like I said I don’t know him nor do I care.
Frankly, I’d sacrifice a lot of things for equal revenue sharing in the conference. It really levels the playing field for everybody. If rivalry games are no longer split evenly, you won’t see me shed a tear.
Does the SEC treat all conference game gate receipts the same way? Because that’s really my only beef with the way the Pac-10 currently does it. Either make them all split in the same method as the “rivalry” game currently are, or remove the rivalry game exception.
I also find it petty that the interpretation of Woodward’s motivation for all of this is that all of a sudden the UW was on hard times financially. First, that’s not entirely accurate – the UW was still generating a lot of revenue even in the worst of the Ty years.
Secondly, even if such a move benefits the UW a little bit, it benefits the Cougs far, far more – the most in the conference. When Woodward first brought this idea up last year, the 2008 numbers that were cited in Bob Condotta’s article would suggest that the UW would stay about the same in overall revenue, or perhaps lose some money (loss of ~$400K in TV money offset by gaining back ~$300-400K in doing away with the rivalry game gate receipt split). Whereas the Cougs (based off the 2008 numbers) would gain ~$1M per year. So explain to me again why you infer this as Woodward and the UW acting selfishly?
Although I do love rivalry games being split evenly…
Of course you do – this arrangement benefits WSU by far the most of any team in the conference.
Even if Washington decides they like the current way…
Why even infer this would be a possibility? While I admit I don’t follow the other Pac-10 teams nearly as closely as the UW, can you point out another Pac-10 AD that has been pushing for more equal revenue sharing as publicly as Woodward has over the last 2 years?
I wasn't the one who made the interpretation that UW falling on hard times was the motivation.
I quoted the person who did. Bud Withers is the one who said that UW falling on hard times financially caused a change in tune.
I also don’t ever mask the idea that equal revenue sharing benefits WSU the most. In fact that’s the point of this all and is what I end with.
If you’re going to quote me I ask that you do so correctly.
Although I do love rivalry games being split evenly, if that’s what it takes to do this, we will gladly give it up. $300,000 loss compared to the millions gained — not to mention the equal playing field — is a small price to pay.
I see nothing in here that says I’ll be stomping my feet if rivalry game gates aren’t split evenly. Again, strictly by revenue from rivalry games, we’re not alone in being the side of a rivalry game propped up by the other.
Also, nobody called him selfish
Arrogant, pompous, prone to delusions of grandeur … I think those were all mentioned, though.
by Jeff Nusser on Jul 18, 2010 8:22 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
He grew up around UW football
Kirk’s a good guy.
by Brian Floyd on Jul 28, 2010 12:37 PM PDT up reply actions
I wasn’t the one who made the interpretation that UW falling on hard times was the motivation. I quoted the person who did. Bud Withers is the one who said that UW falling on hard times financially caused a change in tune.
Don’t be so disingenuous – you’re better than that. Here’s what you wrote:
UW, on the other hand, had a run of success and operates in a profitable Seattle market. All of a sudden, an 0-12 season hits and the tune changes.
Are you really trying to tell me that by writing that, you aren’t also pushing the idea that Woodward is only advocating for revenue sharing because the UW had a tough stretch under Ty (regardless of whether that’s even true).
Again, strictly by revenue from rivalry games, we’re not alone in being the side of a rivalry game propped up by the other.
No, but you guys benefit the most, and usually by a pretty good margin.
Here’s my bottom line on this – Woodward is out there as (far as I can tell) the most vocal proponent in the conference for equal TV revenue sharing, a plan that would benefit WSU athletics the most out of any Pac-10 school, and all I see here is people trying to be offended by his use of the term “subsidy”. The UW has 3 choices here:
- Keep the status quo, which would likely be net neutral currently and slightly less in the future as compared to what Woodward is proposing, and would keep the Cougars well behind the rest of the conference in revenues;
- Continue with Woodward’s proposal of splitting TV revenue equally and doing away with the current rivarly game gate split formula, which is about net neutral for the UW currently and probably a modest gain in the future, while also boosting WSU’s revenues significantly;
- Push for equal TV revenue sharing while keeping the existing rivalry game gate split formula, which would cost the UW quite a bit of money while gaining WSU even more money
All things considered, I think you guys should be pretty happy that Woodward is pushing the 2nd option and maybe be a little less sensitive to his phrasing. It could be a lot worse – a nimwit like Hedges could still be in place at the UW and revenue sharing would be more unlikely.
Again, I'm pretty sure nobody's unhappy tha he's pushing it
I’m happy. Really, I am.
Doesn’t mean I can’t laugh at the man and his now-famous posturing.
I guess maybe I’m grumpy today. He’s pushing for something that benefits your school the most (by far) and yet you guys want to jump all over his use of the term “subsidize”. That’s a reaction that doesn’t seem particularly grateful to me…
There's no need to be grateful, in my opinion
Expansion makes that third no vote a moot point, since four are needed to veto. It’s simply posturing now.
The 0-12 line was a throwaway line, I’ll admit that. In reality, a rough patch of football was the smaller factor in the finances of UW. The financial crisis in every state that fell in line with the end of the Willingham era was more the cause.
It’s simply posturing now.
See, again – the need to paint Woodward’s actions in as negative light as possible. Point out to me another Pac-10 AD that has been so vocal about pushing equal TV revenue sharing recently?
And let’s not forget – he first started pushing this agenda last year, well before there was any assurances that the Pac-10 was going to expand. If there really has been a consistent block of 7 Pac-10 programs pushing for equal TV revenue sharing and the UW was the only ones standing with the L.A. schools to prevent it, then how, when the league was still 10 schools, was it posturing when Woodward first piped up about this?
How is that negative? It's absolutely true
He just came out and said “I’ll support it, if we do away with equal gate splits in rivalry games”. He attached a conditional to a decision that he cannot influence now that expansion is done and it takes more than one swing vote in addition to the LA schools. That is posturing.
Look, his quote sounded arrogant. It doesn’t mean he is, but the quote in the article isn’t exactly flattering.
The point of this whole article wasn’t about Woodward or his one quote. It’s that revenue sharing is coming and it’s largely because expansion made it impossible to veto it. In the end — as I made perfectly clear — WSU benefits the most.
by Brian Floyd on Jul 18, 2010 10:19 PM PDT up reply actions
He attached a conditional to a decision that he cannot influence now that expansion is done and it takes more than one swing vote in addition to the LA schools. That is posturing.
Once again, you ignore the fact he’s been pushing this for over a year. A reminder:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/sports/2009256167_uwmoney24.html
That was well prior to any serious expansion talk.
And the “condition”? Of course he’s pushing for that condition – why wouldn’t he? Why shouldn’t that rivalry rule be revoked? Either have that method for splitting gates for all conference games, or have it for none.
Grateful?
We’re not beggars, dude. I understand you’re grumpy, but you should probably be aware that a word such as “grateful” conjures the same imagery as “subsidize.”
Let’s be real: He wouldn’t be pushing this if it didn’t also benefit UW. That doesn’t make him a bad person. But let’s not pretend he’s being generous out of the goodness of his heart. He’s working to protect UW’s interests.
by Jeff Nusser on Jul 18, 2010 10:06 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Let’s be real: He wouldn’t be pushing this if it didn’t also benefit UW
It’s likely that this is so. That said, the numbers I’ve seen so far suggest the benefit to the UW is quite modest, whereas the benefit to WSU is significant.
We’re not beggars, dude.
No, but you’re acting like you guys are entitled.
And to be clear – I’m not asking you guys to be sending platitudes Woodward’s way. I just found it petty to be focusing so much on his “subsidy” comment in the greater context of a position he’s pushing that benefits the UW modestly and WSU significantly. How about simply saying “it’s about time the UW came around to this position after so many years of opposing it”.
The article devotes exactly two sentences to Woodward's quote.
The second of which says that giving up an equal gate isn’t a big deal.
I don’t see how I fixated on Woodward at all.
by Brian Floyd on Jul 18, 2010 10:22 PM PDT up reply actions
Moos is capable to push for our benefits.
He knows when to jump in and when to relax as you should be on the post.
by well you win some and lose others on Jul 18, 2010 10:30 PM PDT up reply actions
The only person focusing so much on the comment is you
It started with two comments from Grady, one from Brian … and you took it and ran with it. Repeatedly.
We’re just answering your criticisms.
by Jeff Nusser on Jul 18, 2010 10:30 PM PDT up reply actions
I think if you look at things objectively, I had (and have) some legitimate criticisms of how Brian presented the article. And yes, I took offense at how offended Grady came across about Woodward’s quote.
I know we’re not always going to see eye-to-eye about the UW and WSU, but usually Brian’s stuff is a little more objective than this was. Grady, well maybe he’s always easily offended by Woodward, I dunno.
You guys feel free to throw around terms like “arrogant” when it comes to Huskies. We have some equally applicable terms for Coug fans.
I don't understand how I presented it in an unfair way
I simply quoted Withers’ points about UW. I took a jab about the 0-12 season and admitted as much earlier. At the same time, I also conceded Woodward’s point about rivalry games, saying that giving up an equal gate is nothing when equal revenue sharing is the prize.
If I need to walk you through my thought process, I will. I pointed out that UW was the third member to vote against revenue sharing in the past, which is true. I then pointed out — as Withers did — that UW (and the entire conference in fact) has fallen on hard times and backed off that. I added in Woodward’s quote about the give and take because I found it interesting. I concluded with the piece that the votes needed to veto are now 4 instead of 3, creating a scenario where it’s likely revenue sharing will easily pass.
So, what I was attempting to do is show the past, what has changed after expansion, and why expansion — more than anything else (except perhaps a commissioner change) — makes equal revenue sharing likely.
The entire point of the article has nothing to do with Woodward. It’s not about Woodward or his comment and I thought I concluded as much.
by Brian Floyd on Jul 18, 2010 11:28 PM PDT up reply actions
How dare you be logical
It’s so much easier to just take one part of the post and blow it out of proportion.
by Jeff Nusser on Jul 18, 2010 11:31 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I objected to the parroting of Withers that the down times are strictly what caused the UW to change their position on TV revenue sharing. I also wonder what your logic was with this statement:
I don’t blame the L.A. schools for always voting no. They can use their location to their benefit and gain a leg up on the rest of the competition.
UW, on the other hand, had a run of success and operates in a profitable Seattle market. All of a sudden, an 0-12 season hits and the tune changes.
So what exactly is your point here, and why the apparent difference in how you view the L.A. schools objecting to TV revenue sharing vs. the UW’s past position objecting to TV revenue sharing?
I also object to this part:
Even if Washington decides they like the current way…
Given the public stand Woodward has made on this subject since May of 2009, why even suggest that Washington would change their stance?
Then in subsequent responses, you’ve made clear you think Woodward is posturing. Yet whenever I point out the above info, that he’s been on the record as being in favor of equal TV revenue sharing if paired with a removal of the rivalry game gate split exception since May of last year, you ignore it.
Slam the UW and Hedges for their objection to equal TV revenue sharing in the past – that’s valid (though I’ll note the TV landscape has changed dramatically since when she first came to the UW). But the implication that Woodward is simply posturing is not supported by evidence.
What's so damn hard to understand?
Is it just an odd coincidence that Woodward went on record in May 2009 — during the peak of the state recession and the low point of Husky football — to support equal revenue sharing? Withers doesn’t think so and I agree with him.
LA has opposed revenue sharing because they sit in a lucrative market. They kill Seattle in television eyes. UW has sat opposed to revenue sharing because they had a string of successes in a good, but not great market. The point is, LA and UW opposed revenue sharing for different reasons. One was permanent, the other was not.
Now, what about this isn’t posturing?
“Essentially, I subsidize Wazzu to the tune of about 400 grand a year,” Woodward said. “If we’re going to share revenue with them, I want that to go away.”
For the last time, I’m going to make this very clear. UW has absolutely no bearing on the decision to share revenue now that the conference has expanded and it takes one more vote to veto than it did in the past. NONE.
So saying, I’ll share revenue, but make the equal gate go away is posturing, nothing more. My point in saying even if UW continues to support the current model stems from this quote as well. Woodward’s tune right now — not last May — is “we’ll support it, if the equal gate sharing goes away”. This implies if equal gates are off the table, he won’t support it.
by Brian Floyd on Jul 19, 2010 10:35 AM PDT up reply actions
Who wants to play "Definition of Arrogance?"
When even suggesting that UW MAY have had a drop in viewership over the last few years because of poor performance over the lst 5 years (they have), that the worst economy in decades COULD have put the University of Washington (bow down) in a less than pristine financial situation (had to reach into their reserve funds this year) or that Scott Woodwards flatulence does not remind one of lilac bushes and candy rainbows brings out this incredible outrage and shock from a fan.
Seriously dude, THIS IS WHAT WE"RE TALKING ABOUT when we call huskies arrogant. So take a moment, a deep breath, and realize that your shit stinks too.
by Fightfightfight on Jul 19, 2010 11:00 AM PDT up reply actions
Look, if you want to play the “arrogant” name calling bit and wildly exaggerate my stance, fine – I’ll shoot back that many responses in this thread are what we Huskies are talking about when we call Cougars petty, jealous whiners.
Or maybe we can have an honest conversation and skip the name-calling foolishness.
So which is it, the UW felt compelled to support TV revenue sharing in a down economy, or he’s posturing because the UW’s vote doesn’t matter any more?
Why is it so hard for you to admit you’re wrong about your “posturing” comment? Regardless of what motivation you think Woodward and the UW had for coming out in favor of equal TV revenue sharing back in May of 2009, it clearly wasn’t “posturing” because their vote no longer mattered. Not unless you are going to try to tell me that everyone in the conference at that point knew that expansion was certain and that it was certain to be Colorado and Utah.
Let me reiterate this – Woodward was publicly calling for equal TV revenue sharing at a time when the UW’s vote mattered.
As for the idea that this turnabout in the UW’s stance is simply because of a down period in UW football, let me reiterate a few facts for you:
In 2008, the worst season in UW football history, the program was still 4th in the conference in TV revenue, not far behind #2 UCLA, and was 2nd in overall football revenue (behind Oregon State interestingly enough).
And let me continue to point out that, at current financial figures, the gain for the UW of sharing TV revenue equally while removing the rivalry game gate split exception is modest at best; when Condotta first reported this in May of 2009 using 2008 figures, it would’ve been basically a net wash for the UW.
I expect that with new TV deals for the Pac-12, that this will end up being a more significant positive for the UW, but the idea that the UW changed course on this simply because of the economy and the football results at that point are not well supported with facts.
An alternate explanation is that Woodward came from SEC country and looked around at the most successful football conferences around the country (in terms of finances) and wondered why the Pac-10 wasn’t doing the same thing. But of course that wouldn’t paint Woodward and the UW in as much of a negative light, so that’s not the interpretation you choose to use.
I interpret it as posturing and feel that's valid
I know what he said last May. I linked to it, and I understand it.
I also know what he said right now, after the landscape changed. His vote doesn’t matter, thus making a comment about a give and take nothing more than posturing right now. When it mattered, he said he liked equal sharing, now that it doesn’t he says he wants the gate split to go away. It struck me as interesting, but It is what it is.
The comment about UW changing its course comes not from me, but from the reporter covering it. I also said that I agree with it after examining the facts and looking at the revenues and expenses lately. UW needs money just like everyone else. They’re looking to expand their stadium and the economy is down, hurting every athletic department. Equal revenue sharing will help them, as will a better TV contract. Without it, that gap between USC/UCLA and the rest of the conference will significantly widen.
This is why I don’t put a ton of stock in the 2008 revenues. They’ll look completely different than the revenues from the upcoming contract.
I don’t feel it’s necessary to say Woodward brought his SEC way of thinking to the Pac-10 and changed the landscape. The movement to allow equal revenue sharing has been brewing for years. It’s my opinion that expansion — and the resulting change in veto power — is the overriding factor in getting this done. No one school is carrying that torch.
by Brian Floyd on Jul 19, 2010 12:08 PM PDT up reply actions
what is he saying differently now?
I know what he said last May. I linked to it, and I understand it.
I also know what he said right now, after the landscape changed.
I guess I’m dense, because you’re going to have to point out to me what he said in May 2009 that’s different than what he said in July of 2010 – from my read of both articles, there’s no difference in what Woodward is pushing for – equal revenue sharing of TV money, doing away with the rivalry game gate split exception.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/sports/2009256167_uwmoney24.html
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/budwithers/2012384965_withers18.html
So again, I ask how it’s “posturing” when his stance has been consistent, and he had that stance before his vote became moot?
I interpreted them as two different ways of thinking
In 2008, he said he’d like to share all TV and gate revenue. Now, he says he shouldn’t be subsidizing WSU. I took the 2008 quote as saying equal sharing for TV and all gates and the 2010 quote as saying no gate sharing at all. I may be wrong.
If the conference shares all revenue he will still be subsidizing WSU. On the other hand, the rest of the conference will also be paying WSU in the millions. It sounds like a simple misunderstanding.
The gate sharing is a small deal in the scheme of it to me, as I made clear. If it goes away, so be it. If the conference shares all gates, then WSU goes from a huge win (TV equal shares) to an epic win (truly equal footing). Either one is fine with me.
Again, we’re going in circles and it sounds like it’s simply a misunderstanding.
And anyway, we've dominated this thread going back and forth
I’d like to close this subthread and move on. We’re all on different wavelengths and I doubt that will change.
yeah, true
I hope I’ve at least presented you with a clear picture of what I was objecting to. I know we’re coming from different sets of bias here, so in areas of interpretation we may not agree.
Agreed, it was a fair discussion on a murky issue to say the least
And really, in the scheme of it all, it doesn’t matter.
Revenue sharing will definitely benefit WSU and help us close the gap there currently is. For UW, it’ll eliminate the gap USC currently holds. For everyone, a new contract should bring in enough money to put the conference on the national map.
All told, we’re doing pretty well. If the biggest concern is what an AD said, I really can’t complain.
different interpretations
I get the difference you’re seeing now – in the Condotta article, there is this snippet:
Woodward says the reality of that policy is that UW is the only Pac-10 school sharing a significant portion of its football revenue with another school. He says it would be more fair and healthier for the conference to simply share it all.
Does he mean evenly split all ticket revenue? I doubt it, given the significant disparity between stadium sizes and tickets sold, but I can see now why you might think there’s some difference in his position from 2009 to now.
My read on that is that Condotta wasn’t being particularly clear with what he meant by that statement, and/or was misinterpreting Woodward.
Everybody's posturing
It’s not necessarily an insult, and I don’t think it was meant as such.
by Jeff Nusser on Jul 19, 2010 12:10 PM PDT up reply actions
"posturing"
C’mon Jeff, the way Brian has been framing this is with at the very leas an implied subtext that Woodward is only pushing for this because it’s going to happen anyway, that he really doesn’t have a say in it because of the changed voting dynamics in the conference with the addition of Colorado and Utah.
My point is that he’s been pushing for this since before expansion, and before it was clear that the votes would likely fall in line in favor of passing full TV revenue sharing.
Is it at least possible
That he had this in mind from the very beginning, but is coming forward with it now?
Not following you
Who had what in mind and is only now coming forward with it?
Woodward.
I dunno. Again, I don’t think it’s a derogatory thing. This is one enormous negotiation. I don’t think there’s anything nefarious going on.
Is Oregon crying because they do the same for OS? No they are not. They "subsidize" OS in the Civil War to the same tune as the Apple Cup
Difference in capacity between Martin and Husky Stadiums – ~37,000
Difference in capacity between Stanford and Memorial Stadiums – ~22,000
Difference in capacity between Reser and Autzen Stadiums – ~14,000
Difference in capacity between Arizona and Sun Devil Stadiums – ~14,000
Difference in capacity between Rose Bowl and LA Memorial Stadiums – <2,000
UW is definitely losing the most money on the rivalry gate sharing but I know Cal has complained about it too since the Stanford Stadium downsizing.
Looking at revenue per game, the difference between Oregon and OS is substantial
But yeah, there’s decent difference between most pairings in the conference.
Oregon also has PK as an X Factor
he’s got deep pockets and a hankerin’ to spend it all on UO athletics.
They’re not really hurting for any facilities or money in the AD, Auzten is the worst athletic complex on the campus if I’m not mistaken.
?
Looking at revenue per game, the difference between Oregon and OS is substantial
But yeah, there’s decent difference between most pairings in the conference.
But full gate sharing for the whole season isn’t on the table, right? Assuming all teams charge roughly the same price for rivalry game tickets and they all sell out those games, Washington is losing more than anyone else, Cal loses the second most and ASU/Oregon lose about the same amount. I’d imagine USC/UCLA is a wash given the very close stadium capacities.
I went through and looked at what Oregon was making per game
Even at rivalry game prices — where both sides jack up ticket prices — the difference is pretty close to what the difference between WSU and UW is.
Capacity is one part of the equation, but supply and demand is the other. Oregon pulls in, on average, about 2.25 MM per game, a number that I expect increases for the Civil War. On the other hand, OSU pulls in around 1.25 MM per game, which I also assume increases for the Civil War. The difference between the CW and Apple Cup isn’t as big as you may think if I’m looking at it correct.
Full gate sharing may or may not be on the table. That’s a question I honestly can’t answer. The SEC shares everything, but I really don’t see the Pac-12 doing so. We’d do backflips for TV revenue alone. Sharing everything would be Christmas for WSU.
by Brian Floyd on Jul 19, 2010 11:30 PM PDT up reply actions
if this happens
Moos better scale WAY back on how many tickets UW is allotted at Martin Stadium
Plus
we have new teams comming in. It wouldn’t mean that we could have the Crimson Wars, but if it comes to that, we can find a new team.
by well you win some and lose others on Jul 18, 2010 7:47 PM PDT reply actions
Correction
This is an issue Bill Moss Moos will clearly be pushing, more than alignment and scheduling.
by well you win some and lose others on Jul 18, 2010 8:32 PM PDT reply actions
I should probably explain this a little better
Schools fighting for certain alignments or ways of scheduling could band together in the voting and hold veto power (California schools, perhaps).
It looks like I’m holding a tin foil hat here. What I mean is that if the California schools are going to link up to protect their interest — which has been suggested elsewhere — this is where they can do it. The four schools together would hold veto power in revenue sharing and would theoretically be able use as a bargaining chip.
Interesting
Your thinking that the four Cali schools might band together and threaten to veto equal revenue sharing unless all four are placed in the same division? Scary thought… And unfortunetly much more plossible than the tin foil hat your holding would have me believe.
Why are these petty rivalries threatening to destroy such an important move? Luckely I think there is enough difference in oppinion in the California camps to prevent them from allying against the rest of the Pac. The So Cal schools really, REALLY don’t want to share revenue, they would much rather loose playing the bay area every year than give up the LA market benifits. Cal and Stanford on the other hand will care more about equal revenue than they will oppose a move to split them from the LA schools. Who knows what might happen though, this is college football after all.
The So Cal schools really, REALLY don’t want to share revenue, they would much rather loose playing the bay area every year than give up the LA market benifits
This isn’t an either/or situation. They will lose both. They can’t protect hybrid revenue without two additional votes but they could, with the help of the Bay Area schools, force the inclusion of the intrastate games in trade. Theoretically Sandy Barbour and Bob Bowlsby could experience a change of heart about revenue sharing unless the intrastate games were protected. That’s the point.
Cal and Stanford on the other hand will care more about equal revenue than they will oppose a move to split them from the LA schools.
I’d imagine Cal generally falls in the top half of the conference in TV revenue and Stanford still has the Bay Area TV market and an annual game with ND that must pay them decently. Not to mention the fact they’re filthy rich. Both Utah and CU could fall below the Bay Area teams in TV revenue going forward so I don’t think Cal and Stanford are so desperate for shared revenue they wouldn’t risk it in a play for keeping the CA games.
Yea, that's what I was getting at
They could say “forget it, if you won’t give us the rivalry games, we won’t give you revenue sharing”. I fully admit it’s a conspiracy theory, but it’s within the realm of possibility and could be a powerful bargaining chip in the process.
by Brian Floyd on Jul 19, 2010 11:11 PM PDT up reply actions
I don't think its conspiratorial
It’s likely exactly what they’ll do. Or at least suggest they might. Also, they could tell the four mountain schools they’ll support a North / South split with UU, CU, ASU and UA in the south in exchange for support of the intrastate games. That would consolidate opposition to the zipper and create an 8 team CA / Mountain block voting for a North-South-with-CA-protection arrangement.
I wouldn't be surprised if the Cali schools try to get a clause allowing the games to continue
What I can’t wrap my head around — and I think it will take writing out schedules by hand — is if it’s even possible in any alignment. I don’t envy the schedule makers for the future Pac-12.
Trying to please everyone doesn’t look feasible at first glance.
by Brian Floyd on Jul 19, 2010 11:38 PM PDT up reply actions
No, it's not. Someone's getting screwed
1. NW schools screwed the most:
North-South split with Cal and Stanford going north you get 3(8 conf. games) or 4(9 conf. games) cross-divisional games each year. With protected CA games and a 9 game schedule every NW school would go play each LA school every other year rather than 2 of every 3 years.
2. CA schools screwed the most:
Same as above with no protected games. Cal and Stanford will complain the most but SC and UCLA will not be pleased to lose the intrastate games / “Weekender”.
3. NW Schools screwed even more + bonus screwage of Mountain Schools:
North-South with Cal and Stanford replacing UU and CU in the South.
4. Any Zipper
NW and Bay schools still screwed a bit but now everyone else is screwed with them.
What woodward failed to take into account...
…is that it may now be in Oregons best interest to side with the LA schools against any revenue sharing plan that would attempt to redistribute television appearance revenue. Why on earth would they wish to do otherwise? I believe twelve of their thirteen 2009 appearances were televised national/regional on ABC network or national cable on either ESPN or FSN. The lone exception being the Wazzu game.
It wouldn't be
The national appearances are good, and they do help the paydays, but over the long term it’s impossible to predict whether it’s sustainable. Without national appearances — something that could go away anytime for any team in the conference — the local market is the steady stream.
Oregon can’t hold a candle to the major markets in the conference in that respect and it’s why I wouldn’t expect them to push for unequal distribution.
But what happens when the wins dries up and a bad year or two dawns?
A team cannot continue to be great. Notre Dame is one of many examples as well as our team.
by well you win some and lose others on Jul 18, 2010 9:50 PM PDT up reply actions
…is that it may now be in Oregons best interest to side with the LA schools against any revenue sharing plan that would attempt to redistribute television appearance revenue
I don’t think so. Even with the number of times Oregon has been on TV, their TV market share is not as great as the UW or the L.A. schools. Consider 2008 – I think you guys all know how the UW did on the field that year, and yet (according to the figures published by Bob Condotta), the UW still pulled in quite a bit more in TV revenue that year than Oregon ($4.7M to $3.9M).
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/sports/2009256167_uwmoney24.html
by kirkd on Jul 18, 2010 9:53 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Oregon is going to be all in for TV revenue sharing
First off, we just hired an AD out of a SEC program that is a net beneficiary of such a model.
Next reason would be the lessons from the Ducks’ experience with Fox Sports Seattle (FSN). Despite being on the upswing and playing a far more entertaining style of football than the Huskies, FSN kept on keeping on their relentless pimping of UW. FSN would televise their games regionally ahead of picking up ours. They would, often as not, use their Husky homer crews to provide color and commentary on “our” broadcasts. FSN would promote the crap out of Huskies All Access or like shows and give UW programming the best time slots while not putting similar effort or promotional muscle behind those efforts for Oregon. The final straw really was regarding the treatment of replayed games. The Huskies would always have their increasingly embarrassing losses shown on Sunday afternoons and if the Ducks were lucky, and not being preempted by live programming that FSN never really carried on Sunday afternoons, our games would be replayed, maybe, as counter programming to Monday Night Football.
All of this second class citizenry for, get this, Seattle being the 14th best TV market in the nation while Portland lags a whole seven spots behind. A so-called “regional” network should be a lot more balanced than FSN has ever managed. Even today, the Beavers and Cougars suffer from this same steerage class treatment from FSN.
The Ducks cut their own deal with Comcast and ESPN. Despite the flaws in our Comcast deal, (disputes with satellite carriers) at least it makes us the biggest deal in our own television market rather than having our fans force fed UW incompetence every month of the football season. The ESPN deal recently made ours the only nationally televised Pac-10 spring game. By contrast, the Huskies got a spring game with the production values of a locally televised Guatemalan soccer match. Of course the Huskies provided a level of play that matched up perfectly with FSN’s disinterest in quality.
The disparate TV treatment that forced our AD into seeking out its own media deals is exactly why Oregon will vote for TV revenue sharing models. The struggle we face for equal revenues and media exposure in what is arguably a golden era for us, while holding the lion’s share of interest in the 21st largest TV market in the country, would be tenfold harder if we sucked as badly in both marketing and nationally televised games as the Beavers do.
It will be even easier for our over the top self-promotion to work when the bottom line is already ensured.
Roses Ain't Orange!
by Canard on Jul 19, 2010 8:08 AM PDT up reply actions 5 recs
I hate FSN. Just hate it.
In a 30 minute show, they’ll mention UW for 20 of those minutes, and WSU for 30 seconds. Then Angie “Brickhouse” Mentink will always mention that she’s a Husky. We get it. You went there. You played softball. Please stop talking.
by playerkyle14 on Jul 19, 2010 9:25 PM PDT up reply actions
Seems some fans of USC
support jumping out of the PAC-12 band wagon. Check this out.
by well you win some and lose others on Jul 19, 2010 10:05 PM PDT reply actions
good luck to them
Notre Dame is the only independent of any significance, and it’s only in football, and they still make far less than they would if they were a member of the Big Ten. Let USC threaten independence and then call their bluff.
by kirkd on Jul 19, 2010 10:15 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Could be interesting if some of the biggest schools go independent
They develop their own networks, but band together to bargain a network deal. Could you imagine if ND, Texas, USC and Alabama worked together on something like that?
by Jeff Nusser on Jul 19, 2010 10:18 PM PDT up reply actions
And on a more serious note
Can you imagine the egos in the room trying to put together such a deal. I’d pay money to watch Dodds and Garrett negotiate the specifics with each other (of course Garrett probably won’t be around). It’s tough to picture that happening.
by Brian Floyd on Jul 19, 2010 11:08 PM PDT up reply actions
I agree
If they try it, we call their bluff. Their president and AD should be smarter than that. Despite what they might think, they’re not as well branded as ND, and it will only take a couple years of bad press and poor performing and they’ll end up witht the same problems as ND… with half the money.
The only way i could ever see it working
Is it there was a big movement (say top 6 in revenue) to independence and the BCS explodes or gives those independents an AQ bid. Otherwise, with the BCS as is, it makes it very hard to sustain success and revenue.
Then again, if they negotiated a monster guaranteed contract…
the relevant issue
isn’t so much that they’d go independent (red herring), but that they might organize a secession, like the MWC did when it formed. Definitely unlikely right now (otherwise expansion wouldn’t have happened), but it’s conceivable if, in a couple years, they’re not happy with how things are structured, what the TV money is, etc.
It'd be way more than a couple years
USC just took a blow below the belt and while I don’t think it’ll take them a ridiculously long time to recover, it’s going to take some time. Besides, where are they gonna go if they pull a Texas? The MWC?
if UCLA and USC
wanted out, Cal and Stanford would want to go with them. So would Arizona, ASU, and Colorado, and if those were on board, then everyone else would want to sign up too (and even before then, I’d guess the rest would at the least be very interested).
They have the leverage to know that they’d be fine if they walked, and that by doing so they could probably destroy the league.
By and large, what the LA schools want, the LA schools are very likely to get. I don’t think that adding more members, even though it dilutes their votes, would likely change that situation. Of course, I could be wrong (it’s not like I get invites to the meetings), but I’m pretty sure I’m right on this one.
Since they’d both be substantial losers from greater revenue-sharing, at the least they’re going to want substantial concessions (whatever those might be), and I’d assume that they get them (again, really not sure what sort of concessions – perhaps related to division structure and schedule, perhaps related to championship game location, or perhaps something else).
Too early to tell.
If USC jumps out with or without UCLA, and the other teams stay. Then USC will have trouble with scheduling all other teams, and not mentioned NCAA will be watching their backs from now on.
by well you win some and lose others on Jul 20, 2010 7:57 PM PDT up reply actions
Go where?
Again, they have nowhere to go. That’s 7 teams succeeding from the league to do what? Form their own? Which would be incredibly smart right after the financial windfall they’re about to receive.
If USC wants to go all Texas now (and I doubt they do), then they’ll have their bluff called. The point in adding more schools and pushing equal revenue is that nobody can be the bully. If they level the playing field, the league won’t have to deal with bullying. The truth is, this is the perfect time to push equal sharing. USC knows they’re going to take a revenue hit (especially with no bowls) in the near future. In the short term, a hybrid model could screw them.
Finally, the LA schools aren’t losing here. Even with equal revenue sharing, the TV revenue will go up for every. All they lose is the ability to the big fish.
USC is Private
along with Stanford so they have more freedom (less red tape) to make moves such as this. UCLA would probably need Cal (and vice versa) as both are part of the state system.
I should be working right now...
My Guess at Revenue Sharing....
is that there will be some sort of compromise. I do believe that for the long term health of a league – that some sort of equality in revenue is best. But the Pac has never had it – so those that benefit from it wont want to give it up and those that don’t benefit don’t miss what they haven’t had (so to speak). I think there will be some sort of compromise though between the TBD Nat’l TV deal and the IMO inevitable PTN (Pac Twelve Network).
There may still be some sort of unbalanced distribution from the nat’l deal with even distribution of PTN subscription/ad revenue OR vice versa. If some of the albiet early figures are close to accurrate and the Pac will be in line to receive somewhere in the neighborhood of $155M/yr from a Nat’l contract (vs the $55M/yr or so it receives now) plus CCG and all BCS/Bowl revenue (which I believe are split evenly now) + potential PTN dollars………well there will be more money than the conference has ever seen and even those that don’t benefit from unbalanced distribution will have gobs more then they have seen in the past.
I can only imagine that there will be a way to make all happy…..that is unless the SoCal schools demand uneven distribution on the Nat’l deal and all the Cal schools demand uneven distribution of PTN due to sheer number of subscribers they are bringing in.
This post is already getting longer then I expected so I will just say lastly that I can’t imagine that the school presidents/chancellors/ADs/etc charged Scott with progressive movements for expansion, TV deals, and network development just to Mayweather/Pacquiao it up when the conference and every institution will be benefiting.
I should be working right now...
"just to Mayweather/Pacquiao it up when the conference and every institution will be benefiting."
How long have you been following this conference? ;-)
In all seriousness, the Pac-10 has a long-standing tradition of screwing each other. The “haves” protect their interests fiercely. I don’t think these rumblings of strife are made up — it’s pretty much par for the course for these guys.
You’re probably right on the compromise. Full revenue sharing just makes too much sense.
by Jeff Nusser on Jul 22, 2010 10:02 AM PDT up reply actions
Followed the conference long enough.....
I guess its just too much to hope for a complete 180 shift from everyone as they move away from the Hansen era.
I think full rev sharing is probably the most healthy environment that can be created if everyone was bought in and used to that system (see NFL* and Big Ten). But if you already have a system of those that benefit and have some semblance of power vs those that don’t within an established system (see MLB and UTen (formerly the Big XII)) – then good luck getting those with market power to give it up. The Pac falls into the latter so I don’t see full rev on the horizon.
That said – if I am thinking right (and those that are much smarter can correct me if worng) the only revenue stream paid out by the conference itself are from nat’l TV deal and BCS/Bowl payouts. Now I see different number reported all over the internet but the best that I can approximate has the TV deal valued @$53M and bowl payouts somewhere around $40M (before travel expenses). So even ballparking it the conference is paying out an unbalanced 1/10 split of $90M+ (give or tak $10M for inaccuaracy :).
In fantasyland that Scott has us hoping for, the Pac would be splitting the new Nat’l TV deal is projecting around $155M and the BCS/Bowl dollars (which would hope to increase with possibly 2 BCS teams and better bowl affiliations) revenues that already exist PLUS a CCG valued anywhere from $10M to $15M PLUS a PTN that is projected to bring in around $45M-$50M (the BTN supossedly paid out $66M between the team in 2007).
So oversimplified dollars are the current @$90M+ between 10 teams or the possibility of $250M between 12 teams. Long winded way of saying the even with an unbalanced payout of some kind somewhere (whether it be from the Nat’l or PTN) still has everyone (UC and especially UU included) getting much more then where they are today so I don’t see it ultimately causing too much boat rocking.
Of course I live in my world…which doesn’t always work in reality…
I should be working right now...
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Community Guidelines
Related FanPosts on CougCenter
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
