Bumping it up as there is a good discussion going on in comment thread. GO BRUINS. -N
Jon Wilner from the San Jose Mercury News has another really interesting post on "Conference revenue and per-school distribution figures" for the current Pac-10 and what factors in "revenue distribution" in play in a realigned Pac-12 conference. Right now UCLA alums and athletic supporters should be paying very close attention to these developments because there is a chance Bruins could get hurt by the new Pac-12 (so much for the notion that adding a school like Utah was going to be helpful for UCLA).
First, here is how the current revenue distribution model (per Wilner's post) in the Pac-10:
One piece of the We Want L.A! equation involves the league's TV revenue distribution plan, which calls for 45% of the approximately $50+ million pot to be split evenly among the schools and 55% to be distributed based on TV appearances.
Obviously UCLA and Southern Cal are lot more on TV because we are located in the second largest media capital of the world. It is one of those "natural advantages" UCLA has for being in a paradise, minutes away from Malibu, and bordered by Santa Monica, Beverly Hills, and West LA.
The natural advantages of UCLA were reflected in the revenue distribution figures from 2007 to 2009:
*** Two-year total distributions
As Wilner notes the numbers for UCLA are noteworthy because:
UCLA was the No. 3 earner during a two-year window despite the fact that the Bruins went 10-15 - that's the power of the L.A. market, folks. Had they actually been winning, the Bruins would be a clear No. 2 on the revenue list.
Imagine how the potential of those figures if CRN has the football program turned around in next two years and Ben Howland can get the hoops program back on track?
Amidst this background the Pac-10 administration and some schools might be pushing for the following "change" in the current distribution model:
One option is to change the distribution model. If all the TV income is split evenly, not just 45% of it, then frequency of games against the L.A. schools isn't as significant, at least in terms of revenue purposes. (Recruiting is an entirely different matter.
It's a given that both Southern Cal and UCLA will be against this:
Changing the distribution model would require approval of 75% of the schools — or nine of the 12, since Utah and Colorado would have voting rights on this issue.
It’s safe to assume that such a vote would go all the way to the presidents and chancellors.
It’s also safe to assume that USC and UCLA would be opposed to a change.
In the old Pac-10 that would have been enough to stop any though of forcing equal distribution of revenues. Now because we have added a program like Utah in the mix, the Southern California schools will need one more ally to stop any kind of forced equal distribution of revenues among program.
It will be interesting to see if there will be another program who will join with Southern California schools. There is a chance Cal would join UCLA/Southern Cal in return for a pact that would ensure any division re-allignment guarantees Cal-UCLA and Cal-Southern Cal game every year. However, that is not a sure bet.
What is clear thought that the so called Pac-10 expansion right now has opened up a Pandora's box with potential negative impact on UCLA with regards to the bottom line. I wish UCLA officials had thought through these scenarios before giving Larry Scott the green light to add schools like Utah into the mix. At this point, we certainly hope they are looking at every option to ensure UCLA doesn't get screwed in any kind of refigured revenue distribution plan in the Pac-12. If we do, UCLA officials will have some explaining to do.