No revenue sharing= NFL being the Big 12?

[pstall]

Good write up on a current comparison of a hybrid revenue sharing program the Big 12 has.

As a comparison, look at the Big XII conference in football. The Big XII (and every other college conference) is bound by a salary cap with player salaries = $0. When it comes to TV revenues, the Big XII operates under a split-pool revenue sharing system* where all television revenues are pooled together. Then half of the pot is divided up evenly among the 12 teams and the other half is divided up among the teams depending on how many telly appearances each team has made.

This means that teams like Texas, Oklahoma, and Nebraska, which have the biggest football followings and appear on TV most-often, get a bigger ladle from the money pot than teams like Baylor, Iowa State, and Kansas State.

In terms of the spread of championships, the Big XII has not been balanced. Nine of the fourteen championships have been won by either Oklahoma or Texas, including that classic game played between Texas and Nebraska last weekend. Throw the Huskers into the championship count, and 11 of the 14 championships have gone to the big market teams.

With the divisional format in the Big XII, it is possible that an upset will occur where a "small" market team wins the overall championship over a "large" market team. Kansas State winning over Oklahoma in 2003 and, to a lesser extent, Colorado's 2001 defeat of Texas bear this out. But the spread over time tells a different story

http://thesportseconomist.com/

[House]

I still think that revenue sharing will be back in the final CBA.

The owners dropped it so that they would have an upperhand in the contract negotiations. The players are reportedly wanting more than 60% of the pie. The owners balked. The union said "Hey an uncapped year isn't going to hurt the players that much.". So the owners did the one thing that put the ball back into thier court, canceled revenue sharing. That puts a hole in about 20+ owners pocket, a big hole. Not as many big contracts to go around without a cap if over half the teams are barely making ends meet.

The main reason I think all of this is because when they tried to drop revenue sharing last time the negotiated a lot of the owners flipped out. You really didn't hear much complaining about how it was going to kill teams like AZ, SF, TN, Buffalo, Jax, and the such. Thats because the owners know if they do reach an agreement on the CBA then revenue sharing will be back and if they don't it gives them an out with the fanbases as to why they are so cheap.

[Fiz]

that 100 million dollars is just part of 6.5 billion

this is a really dumb comparison

[pstall]

that 100 million dollars is just part of 6.5 billion

this is a really dumb comparison

to ask if you clicked on the link would be like asking Tiger if he likes to stay home on a Friday night while the family is way..

Don't confuse dollars with outcomes due to values being misplaced. I will explain that too you one day over a Newcastle or one of your Swedish organic beers.

Since a salary cap does not change the marginal value of players, it shouldn't ceteris paribus alter competitive balance.

Revenue sharing, on the other hand, reduces the difference between the amount of revenue teams can keep and, thus, can alter the value of players. Altering the system as the NFL appears to have done will, if it remains in place over the long haul, may create more of a disparity between "large" market and "small" market teams.

[Fiz]

to ask if you clicked on the link would be like asking Tiger if he likes to stay home on a Friday night while the family is way..

Don't confuse dollars with outcomes due to values being misplaced. I will explain that too you one day over a Newcastle or one of your Swedish organic beers.

cool then i'll teach you how to critically read an editorial and avoid confirmation bias

here's a start

Since a salary cap does not change the marginal value of players, it shouldn't ceteris paribus alter competitive balance.

Revenue sharing, on the other hand, reduces the difference between the amount of revenue teams can keep and, thus, can alter the value of players. Altering the system as the NFL appears to have done will, if it remains in place over the long haul, may create more of a disparity between "large" market and "small" market teams.

also he says the salary cap does not change the marginal value of players? it absolutely does that's dumb as hell

[Fiz]

also that guys blog is funny

Resources tend to move to their most-valued use, unless of course it's notre dame where every top college coach falls all over themself to turn down a higher paying job because of tons of factors that people like pstall don't understand

[pstall]

also that guys blog is funny

Resources tend to move to their most-valued use, unless of course it's notre dame where every top college coach falls all over themself to turn down a higher paying job because of tons of factors that people like pstall don't understand

and you just plagarized his newest update to try to fit here. :smilielol5:

don't you have some lat workouts to do or use a co op laundromat?

[Fiz]

and you just plagarized his newest update to try to fit here.

that was the point dumbass