Quote:
Originally Posted by HolyHandgernade
Personally, I'm not that bent over it. We all know this expansion was led by football and TV revenues. What schools in the conference generate those for us? The Big XII South teams do, and its not even close. What state provides the recruiting ground for almost every conference member? Texas does. What state provides the most viewership? Texas does. And so, what do us poor little Texas bitches have to put up with to allow Texas to take the lion's share? Only a hair under what the SEC schools currently get. That's right, despite little gridiron history to speak of or titles to add, Texas, who we haven't even been partners with for more than 15 years has enabled us to be players in major college athletics. I mean, who else was looking out for us? AT ALL. You want a bigger share of the pie, here's what I would do: WIN. Win often and win big so it is at other's peril to overlook you as a key contributor or attractive target, and quit bitching about good fortune. You almost just doubled your previous high mark takes for a season.
|
What you are saying is only partly true. Under the old revenue sharing system, a school's payout was determined by TV appearances. In that system, Missouri was doing quite well and was earning more than Tech or A&M. If the St. Louis Post Dispatch is accurate, MU will earn less despite outperforming Tech and Ok. State in recent years.