No, my mind is made up that he makes a compelling point.
What point, exactly, does he make? He says nothing specific. He makes no points.
1) That the other 2 major conferences share funds evenly
2) The other conferences have been more assertive in their pursuit of revenue for the conference
3) That our conference management system seems to have created an oligarchy and Missouri feels like they cannot improve their lot, but the feel compelled to keep up with like schools (illinois) and believe they should be able to keep up.
...as a result the Big 12 is behind in revenue by a lot. Missouri is behind Illinois by $21 Million to $9 Million. Mike ain't happy, and feels impotent to change it.
Those are points. Did you read the article?