Cody Campbell can now change his focus

[rchawk]

Now it will be to the Save College Sports Act. Some good things in there but he wants the Big Ten and SEC to share their profits with the Big 12 and ACC. In high school social studies class that was called socialism.

 

[uihawk82]

Now it will be to the Save College Sports Act. Some good things in there but he wants the Big Ten and SEC to share their profits with the Big 12 and ACC. In high school social studies class that was called socialism.

who is cody campbell

 

[TrojanHawkeye]

 

[LaQuintaHawk]

Is there a web link missing in the OP?

 

[IACub]

who is cody campbell

Chair of the Texas Board of Regents that ultimately yanked Sorsby's eligibility.

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id...dan-sorsby-plans-enter-nfl-supplemental-draft

It's a name that I will remember for at least 15 more minutes, then forget forever.

 

[Roncuba65]

who is cody campbell

He bought and owns Texas Tech.

 

[Hawk_4shur]

He bought and owns Texas Tech.

It must be nice to have your own University.

 

[Hawk-A-Doodle-Doo]

Sure thing. No prob. Big Ten and SEC will gladly start sharing revenue with competing conferences just as soon as he starts sharing Double Eagle Energy revenue with FourPoint and Sabinal, and Tumbleweed Royalty revenue with Viper and Dorchester, you know, because..........competitive balance and fairness and stuff and junk.

 

[Roncuba65]

It must be nice to have your own University.

I know you are being sarcastic, but seriously the guy has f u money and if he wasn't around this Sorsby stuff would have never happened in the first place.

 

[TheAlamo]

Anything associated with Cody Campbell has a stench to it.

 

[KuwaitHawk]

Anything associated with Cody Campbell has a stench to it.

Can smell it in San Antonio and that is with it blowing through Austin.

 

[Hawk_4shur]

I know you are being sarcastic, but seriously the guy has f u money and if he wasn't around this Sorsby stuff would have never happened in the first place.

Actually I was being sincere. Having FU money and owing a University would be cool.

But, being a dick and buying players that shouldn't be playing is not cool.

 

[rchawk]

Sure thing. No prob. Big Ten and SEC will gladly start sharing revenue with competing conferences just as soon as he starts sharing Double Eagle Energy revenue with FourPoint and Sabinal, and Tumbleweed Royalty revenue with Viper and Dorchester, you know, because..........competitive balance and fairness and stuff and junk.

Say you own a restaurant that has a reputation for having the best burgers in the county. A competitor across town with a much less popular product is having trouble paying his bills and meeting payroll.

Now, instead of paying your staff even more, the other guy wants you to give him a slice of your profits- because it's only fair.

 

[T. Kimball]

Irony here is that successful capitalists are the target of his socialist coveting.

 

[Hawk_4shur]

Irony here is that successful capitalists are the target of his socialist coveting.

First let me say that I am not in favor of the B1G ans the SEC sharing revenue.

BUT, when you realize how much revenue sharing goes on within those conferences, it makes you wonder. If it's a good thing for tOSU to share revenue with Northwestern and Purdue, maybe the idea of the B1G sharing with Boston College and Cincinnati has some merit.

As they say, a rising tide lifts all boats. Maybe helping out the less fortunate helps everyone?

Also, Is "big boy" football destined to be 50 teams? 40? Would that be a good thing? I'm not so sure.

Deep thoughts.

 

[Hawkfan_08*]

Sure thing. No prob. Big Ten and SEC will gladly start sharing revenue with competing conferences just as soon as he starts sharing Double Eagle Energy revenue with FourPoint and Sabinal, and Tumbleweed Royalty revenue with Viper and Dorchester, you know, because..........competitive balance and fairness and stuff and junk.

I would just like him to give me equal shares of his wealth. Fairness and all.

 

[paednoch23]

First let me say that I am not in favor of the B1G ans the SEC sharing revenue.

BUT, when you realize how much revenue sharing goes on within those conferences, it makes you wonder. If it's a good thing for tOSU to share revenue with Northwestern and Purdue, maybe the idea of the B1G sharing with Boston College and Cincinnati has some merit.

As they say, a rising tide lifts all boats. Maybe helping out the less fortunate helps everyone?

Also, Is "big boy" football destined to be 50 teams? 40? Would that be a good thing? I'm not so sure.

Deep thoughts.

The difference is that Ohio State and Northwestern are members of the same enterprise: the Big Ten. They jointly create the product and share the same obligations, even if they don’t contribute equally to the ratings. Sharing revenue among conference partners is one thing. Requiring the Big Ten to share revenue with Boston College or Cincinnati would be like requiring the NFL to share its television money with college football. They’re separate enterprises.

At the end of the day, conferences make money because they provide entertainment that people are willing to pay for. By that logic, requiring the Big Ten to subsidize schools outside the conference would be like telling the producers of an Oscar-winning blockbuster that they have to share their profits with a box office flop simply because both are in the movie business. One production attracted far more people and generated far more value, but that doesn’t create an obligation to share the proceeds with an entirely separate production.

And if we’re going to insist that the Big Ten and SEC subsidize the other power conferences, why stop there? Why not the Group of Five? Why not the FCS? Everyone agrees there must be a line somewhere. The only real question is where to draw it. The Big Ten’s answer is simple: at the conference boundary.

 

[Hawk_4shur]

The difference is that Ohio State and Northwestern are members of the same enterprise: the Big Ten. They jointly create the product and share the same obligations, even if they don’t contribute equally to the ratings. Sharing revenue among conference partners is one thing. Requiring the Big Ten to share revenue with Boston College or Cincinnati would be like requiring the NFL to share its television money with college football. They’re separate enterprises.

At the end of the day, conferences make money because they provide entertainment that people are willing to pay for. By that logic, requiring the Big Ten to subsidize schools outside the conference would be like telling the producers of an Oscar-winning blockbuster that they have to share their profits with a box office flop simply because both are in the movie business. One production attracted far more people and generated far more value, but that doesn’t create an obligation to share the proceeds with an entirely separate production.

And if we’re going to insist that the Big Ten and SEC subsidize the other power conferences, why stop there? Why not the Group of Five? Why not the FCS? Everyone agrees there must be a line somewhere. The only real question is where to draw it. The Big Ten’s answer is simple: at the conference boundary.

I agree with you. However .....

The B1G is a separate enterprise. But it is also part of a larger enterprise - NCAA FBS. So my question is - is it in the best interest of the B1G to ensure that the other conferences not only survive but remain competitive? I don't know.

In your NFL example, while it's clearly unnecessary, the NFL supporting CF is not really outlandish. Without CF the NFL would have to form a minor league system of some kind. The NBA shares revenue with the WNBA. Why?

In this country we have a (supposedly) progressive tax structure, The rich paying more than the poor is sharing the cost of government - not revenue sharing but with the same effect. The same goes for property taxes.

Again, I'm not in favor of revenue sharing as proposed. But I don't think it's completely without merit.

 

[TheGuy9]

First let me say that I am not in favor of the B1G ans the SEC sharing revenue.

BUT, when you realize how much revenue sharing goes on within those conferences, it makes you wonder. If it's a good thing for tOSU to share revenue with Northwestern and Purdue, maybe the idea of the B1G sharing with Boston College and Cincinnati has some merit.

As they say, a rising tide lifts all boats. Maybe helping out the less fortunate helps everyone?

Also, Is "big boy" football destined to be 50 teams? 40? Would that be a good thing? I'm not so sure.

Deep thoughts.

Hmmm. The actual number of big boy football teams is actually well below 40 or 50 teams. Only 14 or 15 teams have ever won the championship in the 25 or so years since they started playing for a championship. There are probably 35 to 40 teams in total that can truly challenge to be a member of the elite and some of them only on occasion. So Yeah. 40 or 50 would be nice as it would be an expansion of the elite teams playing the game.

 

[Passing Is For COMMIES]

I agree with you. However .....

The B1G is a separate enterprise. But it is also part of a larger enterprise - NCAA FBS. So my question is - is it in the best interest of the B1G to ensure that the other conferences not only survive but remain competitive? I don't know.

In your NFL example, while it's clearly unnecessary, the NFL supporting CF is not really outlandish. Without CF the NFL would have to form a minor league system of some kind. The NBA shares revenue with the WNBA. Why?

In this country we have a (supposedly) progressive tax structure, The rich paying more than the poor is sharing the cost of government - not revenue sharing but with the same effect. The same goes for property taxes.

Again, I'm not in favor of revenue sharing as proposed. But I don't think it's completely without merit.

It makes sense for OSU to share rev with a school like Northwestern because they play each other. At the end of the day, conferences are essentially glorified scheduling agreements.

OSU brings in more eyeballs and money, but they need competitive teams to play them to keep being the brand they are. So doing some rev sharing to keep competition high makes sense for them.

Like you said before, a rising tide lifts all boats. But if you don’t play that school then I don’t think it benefits you very much, if at all.

 

[Palmerhawk]

It sounds like the "Save College Sports Act" is now dead as Thune cast doubt on Senate voting on it this session.

The BIG and SEC b were not on board for good reasons so nothing was happening on it til it is acceptable for these two heavyweights.

 

[hawkeyebob1962]

First let me say that I am not in favor of the B1G ans the SEC sharing revenue.

BUT, when you realize how much revenue sharing goes on within those conferences, it makes you wonder. If it's a good thing for tOSU to share revenue with Northwestern and Purdue, maybe the idea of the B1G sharing with Boston College and Cincinnati has some merit.

As they say, a rising tide lifts all boats. Maybe helping out the less fortunate helps everyone?

Also, Is "big boy" football destined to be 50 teams? 40? Would that be a good thing? I'm not so sure.

Deep thoughts.

A rising tide lifts all boats, but...it's the tide doing the lifting, not the more well-to-do boats.

 

[hawkeyebob1962]

I agree with you. However .....

The B1G is a separate enterprise. But it is also part of a larger enterprise - NCAA FBS. So my question is - is it in the best interest of the B1G to ensure that the other conferences not only survive but remain competitive? I don't know.

In your NFL example, while it's clearly unnecessary, the NFL supporting CF is not really outlandish. Without CF the NFL would have to form a minor league system of some kind. The NBA shares revenue with the WNBA. Why?

In this country we have a (supposedly) progressive tax structure, The rich paying more than the poor is sharing the cost of government - not revenue sharing but with the same effect. The same goes for property taxes.

Again, I'm not in favor of revenue sharing as proposed. But I don't think it's completely without merit.

It boils down to one thing: revenue-sharing should be an option, not a mandate or requirement.