My post on Big Ten expansion candidates
drew a comment from the author of Mizzou Sanity
, a blog covering Missouri sports, obviously. He has a couple of posts concerning Big Ten expansion and Missouri's possible interest in joining the Big Ten. MS pointed out this article
from the Dallas Morning News concerning the Big XII's revenue sharing procedures. To entice the Texas school to reject overtures from the Pac-10 and SEC, the Big XII, during its formation, allowed schools that make more appearances on television to collect more money. According to the article, half of the TV revenue is split equally, and the other half is distributed based upon appearance fees. How much of a difference does that make?
Under the current formula, the so-called haves in the conference earn anywhere from $1 million to $1.5 million more per year in television revenue than the have-nots.
Athletic budgets in the Big 12 average nearly $50 million with Texas at the top end ($83 million) and Iowa State at the bottom ($32 million).
It's not a surprise that a conference in which the members are not equal partners would experience some tension. On the other hand, taking $1.5 million from Texas and giving it to Iowa State would not create financial parity in the Big XII. Would Mizzou leave the Big XII over $1.5 million? Is it the principle of the thing? Who knows. I can't imagine that Missouri's position in the Big Ten would be much better, unless the Big Ten makes that much more money off of its TV contracts. I don't know the answer to that. In the Big Ten, although the league does pool all TV and bowl money, the schools that sell the most tickets and T-shirts have the largest budgets.