[Husker] PAC-12 will not expand

[Steve Kauf]

wrote: "I could be wrong, but I don't think it makes sense that we were asking the LHN 
to share its revenue with the conference, or that we would share our Husker 
Network revenue with the league.  Again, I could be wrong, but it doesn't make 
much sense.  After all the investment and the fact that 98% of the programming 
would be all-things-Husker, that we would share any revenue from that venture."

But isn't that why you join a conference?  It might be 98% of the programming - but you are playing another team - and 80% of those are from your conference.  I don't think it should be an equal split - but the other team/conference should get something... There is some good (as we are seeing being in a good stable conference like the Big Ten) from being in a conference and a strong conference from top to bottom is best.  


Steve Kauf 
A Husker fan deep in SEC Country - Northwest Louisiana 
       
Not the Victory but the Action 
Not the Goal but the Game 
In the Deed the Glory



-----Original Message-----
From: Rod Wellman <gobigred66 at mac.com>
To: husker <husker at tssi.com>
Sent: Wed, Sep 21, 2011 9:56 am
Subject: Re: [Husker] PAC-12 will not expand



n Sep 21, 2011, at 9:47 AM, Skylar Dodds wrote:
> Yes, we were creating our own network.  We had no problem with the LHN,
 EXCEPT that the revenue should be shared (and ours would have too).  I read
 in an article (sorry I don't have it off the top of my head) where when
 Osborne was given the famous 'ultimatum', Osborne asked flatly if Texas
 would share the revenue from their network.  They said no, Osborne started
 making plans.
 
 Were there other things involved in the decision?  Absolutely YES.  But that
 pushed us over the edge.   
 
Yep, I agree that Osborne/Perlman gave the ultimatum and flatly asked for 
evenue sharing.  We said we would if they would. But I think that was in 
egards to overall Big 12 conference TV revenue sharing, not the LHN or the 
usker network.  We knew the Big 12 contract was going to be up for renewal, and 
e knew there would be very good money involved and that even with equal revenue 
haring, NU would have plenty of revenue (thus, Osborne's and Perlman's comments 
hat it really wasn't about money).  
I could be wrong, but I don't think it makes sense that we were asking the LHN 
o share its revenue with the conference, or that we would share our Husker 
etwork revenue with the league.  Again, I could be wrong, but it doesn't make 
uch sense.  After all the investment and the fact that 98% of the programming 
ould be all-things-Husker, that we would share any revenue from that venture.  
 do remember reading that we were willing to give up our plans entirely for the 
usker network, and that Texas was not.  Splitting hairs a bit here, maybe.  In 
he end, Texas wanted to have their cake and eat it, too!
Rod W.
ioux City, Ia.

______________________________________________
usker site list
usker at tssi.com
ttp://romaine.tssi.com/mailman/listinfo/husker