Bob Condotta’s Husky Blog for the Seattle Times continues to be a great source of information on Pac-12 expansion. He was the one who posted the link to updated information on the possibility of the zipper expansion that led to my post earlier in the week. Earlier today he posted another link to an article by fellow Seattle Times writer Bud Withers about TV revenue sharing in the Pac-10.
Turns out, contrary to what I had believed before, the Pac-10 doesn’t do full revenue sharing from the money that individual TV games pull in. The teams involved in the game keep 55%, with the rest being split 45% to all 10 teams (meaning the teams in a league game get 32% each, while each other team gets 4.5%).
While this has been an issue in the past, it hasn’t been as bad because all schools played at least some games in the high media markets in California. With divisional splits on the table, however, this raises a big roadblock. Splitting certain schools out of the L.A. media market, in particular, would be a major hit to those programs financially. It’s no wonder the rest of the conference is so keen on seeing the California schools remain in their division (that, along with recruiting exposure, is why a split that puts the NW and new schools in a north division is dead on arrival).
The change in conference membership is setting the stage for some changes, however. In the past, the L.A. schools along with Washington have been against a change in the revenue sharing agreement, and since it takes a 75 percent supermajority — i.e., an 8-2 vote — to change the financial policies, things pretty much stayed as they were. With two new members joining the conference, however, the vote needed split to change policy shifts to 9-3, so even if the Huskies stuck with the Trojans and Bruins, it wouldn’t be enough. Moreover, on top of the change in numbers, there has been change in the air at Washington as well. A decade of struggle and a new athletic director who favors equal revenue sharing means the L.A. schools would have to get not one, but TWO votes from other schools to keep the old deal in place.
The other interesting piece of the puzzle is that (hopefully soon to be former) USC athletic director Mike Garrett has previously threatened to leave the conference completely if the revenue deals were changed. But just as Washington’s fortunes fell in the past decade, the Trojans are facing tough times of their own, and may not have the clout they used to have, especially with lame-duck Garrett, so his threats are likely empty now.
So what does this all mean? No one but the AD’s know for sure, but my guess is that the Pac-10 will move to an equal revenue sharing system (hey, it works for the SEC and Big Ten), and in return for this, the California schools will be allowed to continue to play each other annually. So how does that work for the rest of the schools in the conference? I think it’s even more likely that we’ll see a Zipper divisional setup with pod scheduling, as was discussed in the previous post’s comment section.
I hadn’t considered the revenue-sharing angle before. Throw that in, and the zipper-pod split sounds like that is going to be how the cookie crumbles.
Indeed, if they don’t change the revenue sharing there’s just no way anyone outside of California will agree to a non-zipper division. I think the pod scheduling is even a stretch at that point because it gives the CA schools an edge up.
Revenue sharing just makes sense for the conferences long term health. Not only does it avoid creating a class structure ala the Big 12 leading to resentment and bitterness it makes realignment easier and makes future expansions more straightforward. I absolutely agree with Washington AD Scott Woodward that if revenue sharing for tv deals goes in that equal gate revenues for rivalry games goes out. It’s bad enough my taxes are subsidizing WSU’s athletic programs (they are partially funded through their schools General Fund, i.e. money from the state etc.) but through ticket sales too? No more free ride for the Cougs! (Plus equal tv revenue sharing gets them more money anyway).
Hmm, if equal TV revenue sharing is tied to the elimination of gate receipt sharing, could Washington State and Oregon State end up being the two unlikely allies that USC and UCLA need?
Per the article the current gap between the conference have’s (USC et al) and have nots (WSU at the bottom) is between $4-5 million. The amount of money WSU gets from Apple Cups at Husky Stadium is $300-400 thousand. It is vastly in WSU’s best interests to get equal revenue sharing even if it means giving up gate reciepts. With the expansion of the conference and the likelihood of a more lucrative TV deal (meaning more money from tv appearances and more of them for conference teams, although split 12 ways instead of 10) the revenue sharing is likely to generate an even bigger bonus for the Cougs.