http://www.forbes.com/sites/chrissmith/2...ge-sports/

Big Ten looks undervalued. SEC slightly overvalued. The rest look about right (based on other sources). I believe the ACC is in 5th out of 5, but close to 3rd and 4th. 1 and 2 are well ahead.

We will lose even more ground on the Big XII and SEC this year with us losing the Orange Bowl payout and them gaining the Sugar Bowl payout. There's also the fact that the SEC Network payout is only going to increase the further they get from the start-up costs.

The Big 10 has their TV contract coming up for negotiations soon too.

We're rightfully focused on the ACC keeping up, but its soon going to be the Power 2 and the Second 3.

Holy crap that gap is HUGE and only getting BIGGER! The SEC and B1 G should never lose an out of conference football game EVER! Once they start pouring all that extra loot into Olympic Sports, then they should never EVER lose an out of conference game in those sports either. The only choice is for everyone to bow down.

I think it is time for a few of you to quit staring the snake in the eyes.

And to think that ND wants nothing to do with all of those Big Ten television dollars, thankfully...

If they were truly measuring the value of the conference, then the ACC at 14 fb members cumulative worth would be at $308 million which would be worth more than the Pac 12 ($300 million) and Big 12 ($250 million).

(07-21-2015 03:41 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Big Ten looks undervalued. SEC slightly overvalued. The rest look about right (based on other sources). I believe the ACC is in 5th out of 5, but close to 3rd and 4th. 1 and 2 are well ahead.

While Big Ten schools were said to be making $32-35M this year, that was only for full members. UMD and RU aren't receiving full shares and I'm unsure if NU is receiving a full share yet or not. So when that is averaged out, their figures drop. That, and as Kaplony said, the Big Ten hasn't renegotiated its tv deal yet, which will certainly put them back on top of the SEC 2-3 years from now.

The numbers seem about right to me. They are taking total revenue per member school. They are not indicating the average of actual payouts.

I'm also unsure if the ACC was split 15 ways in order to include ND or not, but either way we knew it would be near/at the bottom.

(07-21-2015 04:16 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  If they were truly measuring the value of the conference, then the ACC at 14 fb members cumulative worth would be at $308 million which would be worth more than the Pac 12 ($300 million) and Big 12 ($250 million).

You would have to divide it by the number of member schools, since the ACC is at a huge advantage due to having more schools, per your method.

Considering how big a gap there is in average gate receipts, you would think Forbes would include it. And if you look at that number on an individual school basis (not a per school average) the differences can be enormous. Alabama, for example, probably rakes in $25 million a year more than Wake Forest or Duke from ticket sales. On average, the SEC is about $10 million per team higher than the ACC.

This particular writer from Forbes is know for poor methodology. A key disclosure he makes is that he is estimating 2014/15 for some conferences. Since the ACC has not released such numbers it stands to reason the ACC is one such estimate. The B12 aggregate NCAA tournament number seems awfully big and predicated on splitting those funds just 10 ways. This is a accounting method at odds with the way the football tv is accounted.

The direct basketball distribution is just about one-third to one-half the total NCAA distribution. Why the writer would leave that out is just laziness. http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/...-Final.pdf

All NCAA Revenue By Conference 13/14 (No numbers for 14/15 yet)
In millions:

B10 $ 48.17 - BB share 22.2 - $3.44 per school
ACC $ 41.11 - BB share 17.5 - $2.74 per school
B12 $ 33.69 - BB share 20.5 - $3.37 per school
SEC $ 33.41 - BB share 13.7 - $2.38 per school
P12 $ 31.49 - BB share 13.0 - $2.62 per school

It appears he just used basketball revenue which as you can see varies when compared to overall revenues due to NCAA formulas.

Money beyond basketball from NCAA in millions:

B10 $26 - $1.86 per school
ACC $23.6 - $1,57 per school
B12 $13.1 - $1.31 per school
SEC $19.7 - $1.40 per school
P12 $18.5 - $1.54 per school

I wonder what number he used for the ACC TV contract in 2014/15 and where he obtained it.

Agreed Lumber...this guy has written some really badly researched articles in the past. This is essentially the Bleacher Report click bait version of Forbes.

Come on this guy wrote this drivel

http://www.forbes.com/sites/chrissmith/2...-numbered/

If he's using 14-15 and has the B-12 ahead of the ACC then he's off his chalk. The ACC had a really good tourney (not as many teams as we need to regularly get but still), while the B-12 flamed out rather spectacularly....

(07-22-2015 07:25 AM)Crimsonelf Wrote:  If he's using 14-15 and has the B-12 ahead of the ACC then he's off his chalk. The ACC had a really good tourney (not as many teams as we need to regularly get but still), while the B-12 flamed out rather spectacularly....

You know NCAAT money is a 6-year running total, right? The ACC hadn't done that great the last several years in the NCAAT.

I think we can all agree the ACC is in fifth place right now. But I agree this Forbes guy does poor work on this subject in general.

(07-22-2015 12:03 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  I think we can all agree the ACC is in fifth place right now. But I agree this Forbes guy does poor work on this subject in general.

Yep.

The ACC has not been doing that well in the BB fund the past several years, but those funds are separate from the other NCAA funds in which the ACC excels. I think what the Forbes writer has done is compare what the other conferences have announced for 14-15 to what the ACC had announced for 13-14 or he has made an estimate for the ACC for 14=15, that seems low from a TV standpoint.

Comparative accounting is tricky and with NCAA shares paid out over 6 years all those funds are running in arrears.

The title of the article is also misleading, value and income are two separate things. The ACC brings in more money than the B12, but the B12 only cuts theirs 10 ways, not 12 ways as their contract was originally structured. That of course changes the per school take from the Football playoffs, and the NCAA basketball fund.

Who cares if the conference overall brings in more money. The absolutely only thing that matters is how much is distributed to the schools.

(07-22-2015 05:30 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  Who cares if the conference overall brings in more money. The absolutely only thing that matters is how much is distributed to the schools.

Sport by Sport. Year by Year.

A journalist twisting statistics to serve an agenda. Say it ain't so.
CJ