Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

Big Ten fans for sure.

The only other B12 fans around were sooners, ags, and huskers.  And all of those schools voted in favor of unequal revenue sharing, every time it came up.

Yep.
But at least one out-of-synch Big 12 Sooner fan criticized it.
I might not criticize an incentive program based on scheduling and/or TV ratings, though.

Just noticed the tag message for this in my inbox, Medina.

So, those stats would seem to indicate that Missourians had little reason to keep slavery legal, or to join in the rebellion to keep it as a permanent system.
But, by the 1850s, slavery was being defended (in all the slave states) more for social reasons than economic ones. There's a lot of primary-source material from that period that acknowledged that slavery was an inefficient way to organize labor. There was the truism that you could get more work out of a mule than a slave. Few slaves had any incentive to work efficiently, so most didn't. Their incentive was to avoid punishment. Many resisted slavery by "accidentally" breaking their tools, leaning on the hoe, etc.
But the social system, where the poorest, dumbest, least-educated white man could feel superior to every black man was very important for slave-state whites to maintain, even if they saw no economic benefit from the system.

You might find this interesting.



You can see where most of Missouri's slaves were--along the Missouri River.

Sadly, my own country is very dark in that map.  

Interesting indeed that the area next to the Missouri is populated with slaves but the area south of St. Louis along the Mississippi is not.

It kind of makes me want to go read Huck Finn again. I might be mixing up Mark Twain's hometown with his fictional characters but Huck Finn and Tom Sawyer were both from Hannibal, Missouri, right?  And then Huck and Jim ended up floating down the Mississippi on a raft, right?  But to where? I forget the rest of the story.

Unequal revenue sharing has its pluses and minuses.  I get the positives, but there are negative too.  If every conference has it, it means the conferences with the most valuable properties get the most on average.  If you are a top program in a conference that is getting less (meaning you are someone like USC or Oklahoma getting less than Vanderbilt), there is then a major incentive to leave for another conference.

The PAC-12 went from one of the least sharing of revenue equally in the early 2010s to one of the most (even into areas the Big Ten doesn't split it).  That would have worked great if the PAC-16 idea had worked, but as it turned out, you had your most valuable schools falling behind peers and know they could make it up by switching conferences. That didn't happen overnight, but if USC/UCLA were getting paid more the last decade for the value they brought, it would have been a harder decision to decide to leave now.

Looking at other examples, the Mountain West kept Boise State from going to the American in the last round with an unequal deal.  That also kept San Diego State out which left the conference as the clear 2nd best Group of 5 conference.  There were other defection risks too which would have arisen if that first big domino had moved.  Meanwhile, the Big 12 in the 2010s was mostly equal, but allowed 3rd tier rights to stay with the schools which kept Texas around for another decade and a half.  Sure they are leaving in the end, but that time did matter to the schools who wouldn't have moved with Texas.  It also kept the Big 12 around which has helped multiple new teams find places in a power conference.  

I jumped into the wrong part of this discussion. 

I still hope Cal wanders into a different conference and becomes a consistent mid-major winner. Seems unlikely, but would be cool.

I think Berkeley is just as likely to simply kill off football and other major sports, as it is to join a midmajor.

better than being in the "Know nothing" camp

Sheesh, Maryland.  Figures...