[Husker] PAC-12 will not expand

[Skylar Dodds]

To be fair, while we weren't for equal revenue sharing, we were definitely for revenue sharing as a whole.  The 'straw that broke the Big XII's back' here was that Texas was unwilling to share its revenue from the LHN.  It was the first time in Big XII history that TV money wasn't shared.

Nebraska never had a problem with 'weighted' revenue sharing, but they did have a HUGE problem with no sharing at all.

Sent from my Synergized HTC smartphone on the Now Network from Sprint!

----- Reply message -----
From: "Mike Jaixen" <mikejaixen at yahoo.com>
To: "Jon Johnston" <jon.johnston at gmail.com>, "Paul Dalen" <quesohusker at gmail.com>
Cc: "husker at tssi.com" <husker at tssi.com>
Subject: [Husker] PAC-12 will not expand
Date: Wed, Sep 21, 2011 8:26 am


The Longhorn Network deal really tilted the economics.  When you factor the value of those third-tier rights, everybody except Texas benefits from equal revenue sharing.

That being said, since NU voted that down, it looks awfully hypocritical and wishy-washy.  (We were against it before we were for it.)

But LHN brings other baggage, and Texas has proven themselves to be a less than trustworthy partner in their dealings.  The Big XII agreed to allow each school to retain their TV rights to one football game a year.

Texas went out and signed a contract with ESPN that calls for no less than two.

That's why Jim Delaney told Texas no.  That's why the ACC told Texas no.  That's why the Pac-12 has twice told Texas no.

 
Mike Jaixen
http://huskermike.blogspot.com
http://www.cornnation.com


________________________________
From: Jon Johnston <jon.johnston at gmail.com>
To: Paul Dalen <quesohusker at gmail.com>
Cc: "husker at tssi.com" <husker at tssi.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 7:48 AM
Subject: Re: [Husker] PAC-12 will not expand

Osborne may have talked about equal revenue sharing, but while in the Big 12, Nebraska didn't support it, so I wouldn't play that card so heavily. It's not like we weren't benefiting more than most with the way revenue was set up, and why give up your advantages if you don't have to.

There's an indication that the Pac-12 didn't expand because they really wanted Texas, but realize that with Texas around, things aren't equal.

Perhaps a new Big 12 commissioner can change that.

Jon Johnston
Corn Nation

On Sep 21, 2011, at 5:17 AM, Paul Dalen wrote:

> UT is either brilliant or moronic in its refusal to consider any equal
> revenue sharing deal. It's on the record from last year that equal
> revenue was a large part of NUs decision to leave and now the PAC12 is
> backing away because UT is still opposed to it.
>
> Dodds isn't dumb. An asshole perhaps, but not dumb. So I can't figure
> out why they are staying this course.
>
> Is the ESPN investment messing with the decision calculus?
>
> On Sep 20, 2011, at 23:24, David Strong <gobigredlist at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> This is getting pretty weird.
>>
>> http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/6998751/pac-12-officials-decide-expansion
>>
>> Dave
>> _______________________________________________
>> husker site list
>> husker at tssi.com
>> http://romaine.tssi.com/mailman/listinfo/husker
>
> _______________________________________________
> husker site list
> husker at tssi.com
> http://romaine.tssi.com/mailman/listinfo/husker

_______________________________________________
husker site list
husker at tssi.com
http://romaine.tssi.com/mailman/listinfo/husker
_______________________________________________
husker site list
husker at tssi.com
http://romaine.tssi.com/mailman/listinfo/husker