OK. First, I wouldn't call
this a downfall, unless the ACC is in a burning pile of rubble, because it *currently* dwarfs what the ACC has got - $20MM per school per year vs. $13MM per school per year. And I know that may not be true if/once the ACC renegotiates.
As for revenue sharing, it was an absolute red herring with respect to the Big XII schools that left, with the possible exception of Missouri. The Big XII currently shares revenue in the same manner as the SEC, and prior to Nebraska and Colorado leaving, Tier II rights were on the table to be split and the athletic directors had agreed to it. Tier 2 rights are equally split now, and schools can do what they want with Tier 3 rights which is a philosophical difference on who should market a school's athletic brand -- solely the conference, or the school, too. PAC Ten and Big Ten say former. SEC and Big XII say latter.
It's funny how Nebraska was "beside themselves" when they were benefitting from unequal revenue, and were actually
making more on Tier 3 rights than Texas while in the Big XII. The Big Ten has more TV sets, more money, more tradition, etc. etc. Texas can agree to give up its first born in addition to equal revenue across the board, and the Big XII as it was, and as is currently, constituted, is NEVER going to get the same TV money as the SEC or Big 10 in the current environment. So I totally get the move. Same with A&M. But let's not pretend these teams weren't benefiting from what they were complaining about, or that revenue sharing was anywhere near the top 5 reasons for the move.
Nebraska and A&M saying that lack of revenue sharing is why they left the Big XII is like saying I'm going to take the $500K executive job in Chicago instead of the $300K executive job in Dallas because the Chicago firm pays its staff better. Yeah. That's the reason.