+- CSNbbs (https://csnbbs.com)
+-- Forum: Active Boards (/forum-769.html)
+--- Forum: Lounge (/forum-564.html)
+---- Forum: College Sports and Conference Realignment (/forum-637.html)
+---- Thread: The SEC Did A Little Better Than Projected In 2016 (/thread-807757.html)
The SEC Did A Little Better Than Projected In 2016 - JRsec - 02-02-2017 04:53 PM
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/sec/2017/02/02/sec-tax-return-639-million-in-revenues-2016-fiscal-year/97400990/
Now the usual hooey/denial/statistical spin can begin!
RE: The SEC Did A Little Better Than Projected In 2016 - omniorange - 02-02-2017 05:07 PM
(02-02-2017 04:53 PM)JRsec Wrote: http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/sec/2017/02/02/sec-tax-return-639-million-in-revenues-2016-fiscal-year/97400990/
Now the usual hooey/denial/statistical spin can begin!
No spin necessary, unless it comes from B1G fans.
When it comes to conference monies, the rest of us should know by now there is a Greater 2 followed by a Lesser 3 in the P5.
Cheers,
Neil
RE: The SEC Did A Little Better Than Projected In 2016 - MAcFroggy - 02-02-2017 05:12 PM
(02-02-2017 04:53 PM)JRsec Wrote: http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/sec/2017/02/02/sec-tax-return-639-million-in-revenues-2016-fiscal-year/97400990/
Now the usual hooey/denial/statistical spin can begin!
SEC with the huge revenue figure. SEC schools killing it since the SEC Network.
In regards to the big 12, I imagine that UT makes slightly more with the $30.4M from the Big 12 and the money from the LHN. I would think OU and KU would be pretty close with their third tier deals somewhere in the $5M range for a total of ~$35M.
The other Big 12 schools make hardly anything for third tier rights and are probably around $31M.
Will be interesting to see the Big 10 numbers in the near future as well.
RE: The SEC Did A Little Better Than Projected In 2016 - JRsec - 02-02-2017 05:19 PM
(02-02-2017 05:12 PM)MAcFroggy Wrote:(02-02-2017 04:53 PM)JRsec Wrote: http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/sec/2017/02/02/sec-tax-return-639-million-in-revenues-2016-fiscal-year/97400990/
Now the usual hooey/denial/statistical spin can begin!
SEC with the huge revenue figure. SEC schools killing it since the SEC Network.
In regards to the big 12, I imagine that UT makes slightly more with the $30.4M from the Big 12 and the money from the LHN. I would think OU and KU would be pretty close with their third tier deals somewhere in the $5M range for a total of ~$35M.
The other Big 12 schools make hardly anything for third tier rights and are probably around $31M.
Will be interesting to see the Big 10 numbers in the near future as well.
I would estimate that UT is between 43-45 million depending on how they allocate the LHN funds. OU and KU both signed 7 million a year T3 packages but your estimates are probably pretty much on target since both of them front some overhead.
The Big 10 won't reflect a big increase for this past year. Theirs will kick in next year and should be pretty much in line with the SEC.
RE: The SEC Did A Little Better Than Projected In 2016 - MAcFroggy - 02-02-2017 05:30 PM
(02-02-2017 05:19 PM)JRsec Wrote:(02-02-2017 05:12 PM)MAcFroggy Wrote:(02-02-2017 04:53 PM)JRsec Wrote: http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/sec/2017/02/02/sec-tax-return-639-million-in-revenues-2016-fiscal-year/97400990/
Now the usual hooey/denial/statistical spin can begin!
SEC with the huge revenue figure. SEC schools killing it since the SEC Network.
In regards to the big 12, I imagine that UT makes slightly more with the $30.4M from the Big 12 and the money from the LHN. I would think OU and KU would be pretty close with their third tier deals somewhere in the $5M range for a total of ~$35M.
The other Big 12 schools make hardly anything for third tier rights and are probably around $31M.
Will be interesting to see the Big 10 numbers in the near future as well.
I would estimate that UT is between 43-45 million depending on how they allocate the LHN funds. OU and KU both signed 7 million a year T3 packages but your estimates are probably pretty much on target since both of them front some overhead.
The Big 10 won't reflect a big increase for this past year. Theirs will kick in next year and should be pretty much in line with the SEC.
Got it. Thanks for the info.
I think OU and KU will have trouble maintaining pace with the SEC network while Texas will probably be fine.
At the end of the day, there are a lot of revenue sources for these programs (TV, radio, parking, tickets, donations, concessions, etc.) and some of these programs have athletic budgets in the $80M - $100M range. $5M is a lot of money, but these programs need to find a way to make money from various revenue streams. Not saying every school wouldn't want an additional $5M - $10M, but being within shouting range will keep most programs competitive with each other.
RE: The SEC Did A Little Better Than Projected In 2016 - MplsBison - 02-02-2017 05:43 PM
Yeah, keep in mind that at the end of the day each athletic department has a total revenue number for the fiscal year.
That's the true number for each school, if you want to rank them. Pretty sure Texas and Oklahoma are doing just fine there.
And the thing is, for all these schools even at the very top, they all always manage to spend everything they take in!
RE: The SEC Did A Little Better Than Projected In 2016 - JRsec - 02-02-2017 06:08 PM
(02-02-2017 05:43 PM)MplsBison Wrote: Yeah, keep in mind that at the end of the day each athletic department has a total revenue number for the fiscal year.
That's the true number for each school, if you want to rank them. Pretty sure Texas and Oklahoma are doing just fine there.
And the thing is, for all these schools even at the very top, they all always manage to spend everything they take in!
As to the last statement, that's true of state schools, not necessarily of private ones. State entities and their departments, after all, must turn in budget requests. It's hard to get an increase if you don't spend everything you get. And, in that regard the whole system needs to be reworked as the very practice assumes that tomorrow you will always make more and life simply doesn't work that way and nobody but government employees expects it to do so.
RE: The SEC Did A Little Better Than Projected In 2016 - quo vadis - 02-02-2017 07:54 PM
Wow .... $40 million per school!
That's literally double from what it was just three years ago - $20.5m per school in 2013-2014.
The bar keeps rising. I still think the B1G will be first to $50 million, but that's good for the SEC.
RE: The SEC Did A Little Better Than Projected In 2016 - Insane_Baboon - 02-02-2017 07:59 PM
(02-02-2017 05:43 PM)MplsBison Wrote: Yeah, keep in mind that at the end of the day each athletic department has a total revenue number for the fiscal year.
That's the true number for each school, if you want to rank them. Pretty sure Texas and Oklahoma are doing just fine there.
And the thing is, for all these schools even at the very top, they all always manage to spend everything they take in!
True. While a difference of a few million dollars may seem like a lot, it's important to keep in mind that the total revenues for bigger programs are over $100MM.
If OU receives $3MM less than the SEC schools, it's really only the difference between $134MM and $137MM (using last year's numbers).
RE: The SEC Did A Little Better Than Projected In 2016 - JRsec - 02-02-2017 08:00 PM
(02-02-2017 07:54 PM)quo vadis Wrote: Wow .... $40 million per school!
That's literally double from what it was just three years ago - $20.5m per school in 2013-2014.
The bar keeps rising. I still think the B1G will be first to $50 million, but that's good for the SEC.
Which conference gets to $50 million is all about who lands Texas and Oklahoma. I expect the first year payout of the new Big 10 deal to put them plus or minus 1 million of the SEC. All bets are off after that.
RE: The SEC Did A Little Better Than Projected In 2016 - MplsBison - 02-03-2017 10:02 AM
For as long as they can muster it, Texas isn't going anywhere.
Conference distribution is just one piece of the total revenue puzzle, and Texas can't make the same total revenue in any other P5 conference as its getting now in the Big 12, because of the LHN.
Adding Texas to the SEC or Big Ten would be a nice boost for all those conferences' schools, but would ultimately be a (small, perhaps) downgrade in total revenue for Texas.
RE: The SEC Did A Little Better Than Projected In 2016 - bullet - 02-03-2017 10:12 AM
(02-02-2017 07:54 PM)quo vadis Wrote: Wow .... $40 million per school!
That's literally double from what it was just three years ago - $20.5m per school in 2013-2014.
The bar keeps rising. I still think the B1G will be first to $50 million, but that's good for the SEC.
The SEC Network has clearly been a yuuuuuuge success.
Now about half of that increase is the college football playoff, but the other half is internal to the SEC.
RE: The SEC Did A Little Better Than Projected In 2016 - MplsBison - 02-03-2017 10:29 AM
(02-03-2017 10:12 AM)bullet Wrote: The SEC Network has clearly been a yuuuuuuge success.
Now about half of that increase is the college football playoff, but the other half is internal to the SEC.
Put another way:
100% of the increase in TV revenue that P5 conferences and the BCS organization (now called the CFP) are receiving are due to millions and millions of cable TV subscribers who are essentially paying more in their monthly bill to ESPN and Fox, for content that they don't watch.
RE: The SEC Did A Little Better Than Projected In 2016 - bluesox - 02-03-2017 11:32 AM
It is a nice bubble.
RE: The SEC Did A Little Better Than Projected In 2016 - Hokie Mark - 02-03-2017 11:37 AM
(02-03-2017 11:32 AM)bluesox Wrote: It is a nice bubble.
RE: The SEC Did A Little Better Than Projected In 2016 - JRsec - 02-03-2017 12:04 PM
(02-03-2017 11:37 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:(02-03-2017 11:32 AM)bluesox Wrote: It is a nice bubble.
Whether it is a boulder or a bubble at least the SEC guaranteed its rate with the SECN until 2034. And, at least we are first up on renegotiation with a network, CBS within two years. So we get to head to the trough next, and stay there the longest. Right now that's not a bad position to be in. The ACC I believe is positioned well also. You get a network in a couple of years and your deal extends to 2031 or thereabouts.
What I wouldn't want to be experiencing right now is a major overhaul in 6 years, or the expiration of an overvalued contract in 5 years. The Big 10's last FOX contract was a gamble that could pay off well, or not. The Big 12 is up against the wall.
And depending on how the courts play out the NLRB ruling, and the NCAA plays out stipends or pay for play, the stratification of the sport could yet be more extreme in its definition.
RE: The SEC Did A Little Better Than Projected In 2016 - MplsBison - 02-03-2017 12:31 PM
If TV money for CFB crashes, the SEC and ACC won't be saved by long-term contracts.
You'll go to court, and you'll lose.
RE: The SEC Did A Little Better Than Projected In 2016 - JRsec - 02-03-2017 01:00 PM
(02-03-2017 12:31 PM)MplsBison Wrote: If TV money for CFB crashes, the SEC and ACC won't be saved by long-term contracts.
You'll go to court, and you'll lose.
When Disney/ESPN can't honor a contract you'll be in a bread line outside a soup kitchen in a long line of other red hot rocket aces. I'll be in my garden, but in earnest and not to kill time.
RE: The SEC Did A Little Better Than Projected In 2016 - MplsBison - 02-03-2017 01:08 PM
Not at all.
It could simply be that they've decided the risk/penalty for breaking the contract is smaller than the cost of honoring it.
That shouldn't be the case, as I only see CFB viewership continuing to go up over time.
But they've got to figure out how to monetize that fact to the same magnitude as today's model of making every cable subscriber pay for it, regardless if they watch.
RE: The SEC Did A Little Better Than Projected In 2016 - JRsec - 02-03-2017 01:24 PM
(02-03-2017 01:08 PM)MplsBison Wrote: Not at all.
It could simply be that they've decided the risk/penalty for breaking the contract is smaller than the cost of honoring it.
That shouldn't be the case, as I only see CFB viewership continuing to go up over time.
But they've got to figure out how to monetize that fact to the same magnitude as today's model of making every cable subscriber pay for it, regardless if they watch.
Lost in all of these conversations Bison is that ultimately the consumer will monetize whatever delivery system manifests itself as supreme and that the schools will simply make up for the loss of subscription fees through direct billing. It will be fairer. Now everyone gets that. What they don't realize is the actual cost of a ticket. At Auburn last year, and we aren't the highest in the SEC but certainly in the top 5 or 6 in ticket costs, you had to donate $800 - $1200 to qualify to buy two season tickets somewhere between the end zone and 10 yard line in the lower deck (the $800 range) or to sit in either of the upper decks (ranging from $800 - $1200 depending upon the yard line and elevation of the seats). The tickets are now in the $70 range per each for conference and other P5 games, $60 for G5, and $55 for FCS. So considering that most years we have a minimum of 7 games and that there is a 50.00 handling fee per ticket, the cost of a pair season books is now up to around $1,000, or higher in years with 8 games. My point being that even if streaming costs $200.00 for a season, and it won't, it is still a helluva savings over sitting in the end zone for $1800.00.
The SEC last year averaged 75,000 per game in attendance (bowls excluded). We would have set another record if not for Missouri's numbers tanking, but we still finished 11,000 per game better than the Big 10 (mostly due to Rutgers and Maryland numbers). At an Auburn home game of significance we have approximately 120,000 fans in and around the stadium with about 45,000 of those watching on HD's powered by generators at their tailgate slot. In short, as with Big 10 fans, people will pay whatever to be part of the experience whether that is at the venue, or in their home with friends.
I'm not so sure the ACC can say that. So when these almighty changes to cable come the Big 10 and SEC, and whichever conference most of the Big 12 schools find shelter in, will all manage just fine. Our saturation numbers within our own markets is quite high. That's not true at all for the PAC, and it lags in the ACC. If the model changes it will hurt most on the two coasts, and least in the heartland. But, it will enhance disparity between the two groups.
Because of all of this I found your declaration to be hyperbolic so I responded in kind. In reality not much is going to change for our two conferences or for Texas, Oklahoma and friends.
Now as to demographics and the popularity of football as a whole, it is changing. We may be at peak, or just past it. When Boomers and X'ers are gone football may not enjoy the top spot in status of sports. All of our schools need a 20 year plan in place to transition for that.