[Husker] PAC-12 will not expand

Wed Sep 21 13:50:21 CDT 2011

Wow. 20 (or however many)"successful" athletic programs, the rest can go pound sand. 

--
Greg Zimmerman, UNL '75
Overland Park, Kansas

---- Gary Doyle <gd5565 at yahoo.com> wrote: 
> I find the parallels to our current political climate fascinating.  Texas worked hard to earn their revenue.  Should they be penalized because they are more successful than other conference members? Maybe Iowa State and others should have worked harder and made better decisions. Those lazy schools shouldn't get a free ride off of the coat tails of more profitable universities.  If they can't compete, then they just need to find something else for their student-athletes to do.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> On Sep 21, 2011, at 12:25 PM, Jon Johnston <jon.johnston at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > This isn't business. These are universities. They're not around to make money off their athletic departments, and if they are, then they all need to lose their non-profit status and deal with this stuff just like all other businesses. 
> > 
> > It should be an equal split, otherwise, screw it, just turn it into the NFL..... oh... wait, where there is equal revenue sharing! And salary caps! And it's the most popular sport  in the US by a very long shot, maybe because they realize that when all things are equal, i.e., competitive, the sport is a lot more interesting. 
> > 
> > Jon Johnston 
> > Corn Nation
> > 
> > On Sep 21, 2011, at 12:04 PM, Steve Kauf wrote:
> > 
> >> 
> >> 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
> >> 
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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