Blackshirt
Team HuskerBoard
Apparently Kstate is in the corner pouting..
Weiberg hopes Big 12 learns to share
Kevin Weiberg stepped down from a job that paid him roughly $700,000 per year last month to take a job that, relatively, is obscure.
He's the vice president of planning and development for the Big 10 Network. He was the commissioner, the head honcho, of the Big 12 Conference.
If your reaction was like mine, it probably ranged somewhere from "Hmmm" to "What is he thinking?"
The thing about Weiberg is that he is a thinker. And he thinks this is the right move at the right time. He just secured an extension of the Big 12's television package with ESPN and ABC. Revenues in the conference have nearly doubled since he took over as commissioner in 1998, to $106 million during the 2006-07 school year. Since expanding to 12 schools in 1996, the league has remained stable.
About the only thing Weiberg wasn't able to accomplish in nine years was getting everybody to agree that a conference is only as strong as its weakest member.
The Big 12 does not share television revenue equally and that really bothers some of the conference's members.
For instance, last year Texas was awarded $9.68 million in television revenue. Kansas State received $6.47 million.
When you look at it from the Texas perspective, here's what you see. The Longhorns are often in the hunt for a national championship. They're on TV more than Larry King. They're the monster program in the conference with more money than they know how to spend.
From the Kansas State perspective, here's what you see. The Wildcats aspire to be more like Texas. K-State would like to continue to expand its football facilities and could use that extra chunk of change every year far more than a Texas.
"The bigger-budget schools do tend to look at these (revenue sharing) issues from a different type of prism," Weiberg said. "I'm a proponent of revenue sharing. My feeling, my background in the television area in particular, is that the more conferences can share money equally the better off they are."
But in the Big 12, it's a difficult sell.
Texas and Nebraska carry a lot of weight and neither school wants to share television revenue. Whether that's a selfish or practical viewpoint is open for debate.
"There have to be changes in the mindset when the administrators from these schools come to the table," Weiberg said. "They can't just come there thinking about what their share is going to be. They should think about trying to grow the whole."
The Big 12 splits half of the television revenue it receives evenly. The other half is based on the number of television appearances. Texas, Oklahoma, Nebraska and Texas A&M are on ESPN and ABC a lot more than the other schools. At the most recent Big 12 meetings, revenue sharing wasn't even discussed.
But it's talked about in hushed tones in every athletic department in the conference. Especially by those athletic directors and presidents who don't believe their schools are getting a fair share. It's a growing concern, a battle of the haves and have nots.
"Our basketball revenue from television is more equally shared," Weiberg said. "And in football, the difference is only a couple of million dollars. It's not huge in terms of its impact on the overall budget. It's more symbolic."
It's strange, because the formation of the Big 12 -- a combination of eight schools from the old Big Eight and four from the former Southwest Conference -- has been a win-win for everybody. The Texas schools have given a boost to exposure and recruiting. But they have also stolen much of the thunder from the six schools that now comprise the North Division of the Big 12, where none of the football programs stand out from the others. Oklahoma and Texas have been dominant for several years and Oklahoma State, which has spent millions and millions of dollars on its football facilities, is trying to get to that level.
While the conference is awash in money, the camaraderie of the schools could be better.
"It's like trying to get a family on the same page," Weiberg said. "Being the commissioner was a multi-faceted role. You can't over-simplify it. I used to joke with our (Big 12) staff that there were times when I spent as much time negotiating with our own members as I did with the television entity. That probably needs to improve in the future."
How much of a threat is the acrimony? The members of the Big 12 recognize they're part of a cash cow. The equal revenue issue is a problem, but it's not going to bring down the conference.
Weiberg, meanwhile, thinks he took the Big 12 as far as he can because of his fundamental belief in revenue sharing. It will be interesting to see how the next commissioner approaches the subject because the power schools aren't open to change.
"It was a good time for me to make a change," said Weiberg, who grew up in Anthony and is a former assistant athletic director at Wichita State. "Most of the major business decisions for the next two to three years have been made. There was a period of time here coming up that it would have been more of a caretaker role rather than working on big, substantive projects. It just felt to me like a new person might have a better chance to take on some of our issues than I would."
http://www.kansas.com/sports/lutz/story/117572.html
Weiberg hopes Big 12 learns to share
Kevin Weiberg stepped down from a job that paid him roughly $700,000 per year last month to take a job that, relatively, is obscure.
He's the vice president of planning and development for the Big 10 Network. He was the commissioner, the head honcho, of the Big 12 Conference.
If your reaction was like mine, it probably ranged somewhere from "Hmmm" to "What is he thinking?"
The thing about Weiberg is that he is a thinker. And he thinks this is the right move at the right time. He just secured an extension of the Big 12's television package with ESPN and ABC. Revenues in the conference have nearly doubled since he took over as commissioner in 1998, to $106 million during the 2006-07 school year. Since expanding to 12 schools in 1996, the league has remained stable.
About the only thing Weiberg wasn't able to accomplish in nine years was getting everybody to agree that a conference is only as strong as its weakest member.
The Big 12 does not share television revenue equally and that really bothers some of the conference's members.
For instance, last year Texas was awarded $9.68 million in television revenue. Kansas State received $6.47 million.
When you look at it from the Texas perspective, here's what you see. The Longhorns are often in the hunt for a national championship. They're on TV more than Larry King. They're the monster program in the conference with more money than they know how to spend.
From the Kansas State perspective, here's what you see. The Wildcats aspire to be more like Texas. K-State would like to continue to expand its football facilities and could use that extra chunk of change every year far more than a Texas.
"The bigger-budget schools do tend to look at these (revenue sharing) issues from a different type of prism," Weiberg said. "I'm a proponent of revenue sharing. My feeling, my background in the television area in particular, is that the more conferences can share money equally the better off they are."
But in the Big 12, it's a difficult sell.
Texas and Nebraska carry a lot of weight and neither school wants to share television revenue. Whether that's a selfish or practical viewpoint is open for debate.
"There have to be changes in the mindset when the administrators from these schools come to the table," Weiberg said. "They can't just come there thinking about what their share is going to be. They should think about trying to grow the whole."
The Big 12 splits half of the television revenue it receives evenly. The other half is based on the number of television appearances. Texas, Oklahoma, Nebraska and Texas A&M are on ESPN and ABC a lot more than the other schools. At the most recent Big 12 meetings, revenue sharing wasn't even discussed.
But it's talked about in hushed tones in every athletic department in the conference. Especially by those athletic directors and presidents who don't believe their schools are getting a fair share. It's a growing concern, a battle of the haves and have nots.
"Our basketball revenue from television is more equally shared," Weiberg said. "And in football, the difference is only a couple of million dollars. It's not huge in terms of its impact on the overall budget. It's more symbolic."
It's strange, because the formation of the Big 12 -- a combination of eight schools from the old Big Eight and four from the former Southwest Conference -- has been a win-win for everybody. The Texas schools have given a boost to exposure and recruiting. But they have also stolen much of the thunder from the six schools that now comprise the North Division of the Big 12, where none of the football programs stand out from the others. Oklahoma and Texas have been dominant for several years and Oklahoma State, which has spent millions and millions of dollars on its football facilities, is trying to get to that level.
While the conference is awash in money, the camaraderie of the schools could be better.
"It's like trying to get a family on the same page," Weiberg said. "Being the commissioner was a multi-faceted role. You can't over-simplify it. I used to joke with our (Big 12) staff that there were times when I spent as much time negotiating with our own members as I did with the television entity. That probably needs to improve in the future."
How much of a threat is the acrimony? The members of the Big 12 recognize they're part of a cash cow. The equal revenue issue is a problem, but it's not going to bring down the conference.
Weiberg, meanwhile, thinks he took the Big 12 as far as he can because of his fundamental belief in revenue sharing. It will be interesting to see how the next commissioner approaches the subject because the power schools aren't open to change.
"It was a good time for me to make a change," said Weiberg, who grew up in Anthony and is a former assistant athletic director at Wichita State. "Most of the major business decisions for the next two to three years have been made. There was a period of time here coming up that it would have been more of a caretaker role rather than working on big, substantive projects. It just felt to me like a new person might have a better chance to take on some of our issues than I would."
http://www.kansas.com/sports/lutz/story/117572.html
Screw KSUcks.
