re: More Big 12 GOLD

quote:

---

the BigXII vote made equal revenue sharing contingent on granting media rights. Either way we voted against granting the conference our media rights NOT equal revenue sharing

---

First you say that the vote in question was for equal revenue sharing contingent on granting media rights, then you say that your "NO" vote was against granting rights, not equal revenue.

It was one combined issue, not two separate ones.

If A&M was all for equal revenue sharing and a strong conference, then why didn't they vote "YES" on this issue? Why were they afraid to grant the conference A&M's media rights? All it took was their single vote to lock in the Big 12 to equal revenue sharing to further strengthen the conference. Was it because they were leaving their options open to bail on the conference long before the summer, when it all blew up publicly?

A&M has always been the key vote (along with Texas, Oklahoma and Nebraska) to keep uneven revenue sharing. The Aggies have had their chances to break with Texas, OU and Nebraska, but failed to ever do so, which would've tipped the balance (75 percent to change bylaws) in favor of the have-nots.

Therefore, I stand by my original statement which you disputed, which was that A&M continually voted against equal revenue sharing.

And yes, I will trust reputable journalism sources over a 27/28 year old agroid.

quote:

---

the SEC employs equal revenue sharing and every member gets the same share of conference revenue as everyone else.

---

That is not completely true. Third tier rights are still reserved by the individual schools. To form an SEC Network similar to the Big Ten and Pac-12 networks, then each SEC school will have to grant their third-tier rights to the conference. That has yet to happen.

Maybe it will, maybe it won't.