P5 conference revenue comparisons. (The ACC was conveniently omitted).

http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegespor...5585937500

SEC
Total revenue: $527.4 million
Percentage of revenue distributed to schools: 86.8
Distribution per school: $32.7 million
(Note: The revenue includes only nine months of income from the SEC Network.)

Big Ten
Total revenue: NA
Percentage of revenue distributed to schools: NA
Distribution per school: $32 million
(Note: Conference finances have not been disclosed. The per-school distribution figure cited above is based on public records request by the Lafayette Journal Courier.)

Pac-12
Total revenue: $439 million
Percentage of revenue distributed to schools: 68.5 (see expenses section below)
Distribution per school: 25.1 million

Big 12
Total revenue: $267.8 million
Percentage of revenue distributed to schools: 88
Distribution per school (continuing members): $23.3 million
(Note: Distributions do not include the Tier 3 rights, which have not been pooled and remain owned by the schools — The Longhorn Network, for example. In some cases, the per-school income is higher than that of the Pac-12 average when T3 rights are included.)

Maybe the more important question: if you can still compete for a national championship, with the same expenses (budget) in football and men's basketball as SEC and Big Ten teams ... does that extra $20M in athletics revenue really matter??

the thing is- the revenue gap really has just started to get as large as it is- and it's going to grow.

(05-19-2016 10:17 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Maybe the more important question: if you can still compete for a national championship, with the same expenses (budget) in football and men's basketball as SEC and Big Ten teams ... does that extra $20M in athletics revenue really matter??

Yes and no. As long as a school can still win in the 2 revenue sports, Much of a schools revenue goes towards non revenue sports like track and field, swimming, softball, etc.... So while a program can only spend so much on fb and bb, its profits can really boost its non revenue sports.

$EC

(05-19-2016 10:17 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Maybe the more important question: if you can still compete for a national championship, with the same expenses (budget) in football and men's basketball as SEC and Big Ten teams ... does that extra $20M in athletics revenue really matter??

Don't confuse means and ends. The point of "college athletics" at a school isn't to win national titles. It is to make money. Winning national titles matters to the fans out there who want to yell "we're #1 !!!" and buy the t-shirt, but to the school, money is the bottom line.

National titles, and other on-field success, are only important to the extent that it helps you make more money. If winning games and titles means more fans buying tickets and the like, then that is awesome. But that's what its purpose is.

So yes, far better to be Purdue with their $30 million extra dollars each year than UConn hanging national title banners and visiting the White House every year.

so for apples to apples, the B12 would look like this:

Texas: 23MM plus 15MM tier 3= 38MM
OK: 23MM plus ~10MM= 33MM
WVU: 23MM plus 8MM= 31MM (although I don't think WVU is receiving a full share which would skew things)

don't know the rest of the B12 but they are doing better than the P12 and ACC IMO.

(05-19-2016 10:17 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Maybe the more important question: if you can still compete for a national championship, with the same expenses (budget) in football and men's basketball as SEC and Big Ten teams ... does that extra $20M in athletics revenue really matter??

I have asked this maybe in a different way. How much more does the extra revenue of the SEC and Big 10 translate into on the field/court success? IOW, is the extra revenue really going other places that don't really impact athletic budgets? Obviously the difference between the G5 and P5 of 20X revenue is huge competitively. But if the SEC makes even 2X as much as the Big 12, does that really matter if athletic budgets are similar? Unless we start paying players, seems to me this "extra" revenue is just gravy for the Universities that isn't going to really affect athletic budgets/ performance.

agreed as long as the 85 scholarship limit for football and 13 for basketball stay and you don't pay players.

[quote='Frog in the Kitchen Sink' pid='13275174'
I have asked this maybe in a different way. How much more does the extra revenue of the SEC and Big 10 translate into on the field/court success? IOW, is the extra revenue really going other places that don't really impact athletic budgets? Obviously the difference between the G5 and P5 of 20X revenue is huge competitively. But if the SEC makes even 2X as much as the Big 12, does that really matter if athletic budgets are similar? Unless we start paying players, seems to me this "extra" revenue is just gravy for the Universities that isn't going to really affect athletic budgets/ performance.
[/quote]

You are looking for some type of ROI measurement. That would be an interesting matrix no doubt. Cant imagine that some one like Villanova's ROI wouldn't blow away many of P5 programs.
CJ

The most visible way SEC and B10 schools use the extra money is facilities. You can see the difference in those two conferences and other P5s and especially G5s in facilities comparisons.

I mean Ole Miss just built the Pavilion which is a ridiculous facility. Ole Miss is not know for basketball:

(05-19-2016 10:19 AM)stever20 Wrote:  the thing is- the revenue gap really has just started to get as large as it is- and it's going to grow.

This. The B1G is going to blow right past everyone and the SEC will go higher with the SEC Network.

The B1G will likely be looking at payouts in the area of $53M per school per year without expansion.

(05-19-2016 10:28 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-19-2016 10:17 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Maybe the more important question: if you can still compete for a national championship, with the same expenses (budget) in football and men's basketball as SEC and Big Ten teams ... does that extra $20M in athletics revenue really matter??

Don't confuse means and ends. The point of "college athletics" at a school isn't to win national titles. It is to make money. Winning national titles matters to the fans out there who want to yell "we're #1 !!!" and buy the t-shirt, but to the school, money is the bottom line.

National titles, and other on-field success, are only important to the extent that it helps you make more money. If winning games and titles means more fans buying tickets and the like, then that is awesome. But that's what its purpose is.

So yes, far better to be Purdue with their $30 million extra dollars each year than UConn hanging national title banners and visiting the White House every year.

I disagree with this...

Many power 5 schools have research/academic endowments in the hundreds of millions if not 1 - 5 billion. They don't need 25-40 Million from athletic media rights to survive.

If the money from athletics doesn't go to making your athletics better then what's the point?

Purdue gets a ton of money... great. They suck in athletics.

More money is better of course, no argument there, but I'll take on the field success over the mythical money title anyday.

(05-19-2016 10:28 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-19-2016 10:17 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Maybe the more important question: if you can still compete for a national championship, with the same expenses (budget) in football and men's basketball as SEC and Big Ten teams ... does that extra $20M in athletics revenue really matter??

Don't confuse means and ends. The point of "college athletics" at a school isn't to win national titles. It is to make money. Winning national titles matters to the fans out there who want to yell "we're #1 !!!" and buy the t-shirt, but to the school, money is the bottom line.

National titles, and other on-field success, are only important to the extent that it helps you make more money. If winning games and titles means more fans buying tickets and the like, then that is awesome. But that's what its purpose is.

So yes, far better to be Purdue with their $30 million extra dollars each year than UConn hanging national title banners and visiting the White House every year.

To fans? No its not. Fans don't celebrate winning the media rights distribution championship.

(05-19-2016 10:34 AM)Pir8inRichmond Wrote:  so for apples to apples, the B12 would look like this:

Texas: 23MM plus 15MM tier 3= 38MM
OK: 23MM plus ~10MM= 33MM
WVU: 23MM plus 8MM= 31MM (although I don't think WVU is receiving a full share which would skew things)

don't know the rest of the B12 but they are doing better than the P12 and ACC IMO.

Do the B12 Tier 3 deals you cited include the one football game the schools control plus the other media rights (like radio)? The reason I am asking is that schools in other conferences may not have a tier 3 football game to sell but a lot of them have those IMG contracts for the rest of their rights (which vary in value a lot from school to school).

(05-19-2016 11:44 AM)GTTiger Wrote:  

(05-19-2016 10:28 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-19-2016 10:17 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Maybe the more important question: if you can still compete for a national championship, with the same expenses (budget) in football and men's basketball as SEC and Big Ten teams ... does that extra $20M in athletics revenue really matter??

Don't confuse means and ends. The point of "college athletics" at a school isn't to win national titles. It is to make money. Winning national titles matters to the fans out there who want to yell "we're #1 !!!" and buy the t-shirt, but to the school, money is the bottom line.

National titles, and other on-field success, are only important to the extent that it helps you make more money. If winning games and titles means more fans buying tickets and the like, then that is awesome. But that's what its purpose is.

So yes, far better to be Purdue with their $30 million extra dollars each year than UConn hanging national title banners and visiting the White House every year.

I disagree with this...

Many power 5 schools have research/academic endowments in the hundreds of millions if not 1 - 5 billion. They don't need 25-40 Million from athletic media rights to survive.

If the money from athletics doesn't go to making your athletics better then what's the point?

Purdue gets a ton of money... great. They suck in athletics.

More money is better of course, no argument there, but I'll take on the field success over the mythical money title anyday.

You will take it, because you are a fan. You want to wear the "We're #1" t-shirts. I get that because I am a fan and I want to, too. But neither of us is responsible for achieving the mission of our school.

The answer to your "what's the point?" question is that it is a classic case of cart before horse. The point is to make money. There is literally no value to a school at all in having "improved athletics" unless that translates into more money. That's because athletics has nothing to do with the mission of a university. It's just a means to making money, which then can be used to help achieve the mission.

So being great at athletics or sucking at athletics or having improved athletics by themselves are meaningless to a school, they only having meaning if they make money. That is why schools spend money on athletics, to make it.

As for endowments, those are often tied up in long-run investments and projects. The purpose of the endowment is long-run, so it often isn't very "liquid". A university president can't typically just write a $200m check from the endowment to build a new stadium. So what a school craves is marginal revenue, increases in revenue, because that is "new", liquid money that can be applied to new priorities. New money is hard to drum up, which is why schools are constantly trying to raise it. And athletics is a way to do it. And that's why schools crave these new gushers of money from TV deals, playoff deals and the like.

Believe me, any school would rather be Purdue "getting paid $30m just to show up" as Geno said, than UConn hanging banners.

(05-19-2016 10:12 AM)Gray Avenger Wrote:  P5 conference revenue comparisons. (The ACC was conveniently omitted).

http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegespor...5585937500

SEC
Total revenue: $527.4 million
Percentage of revenue distributed to schools: 86.8
Distribution per school: $32.7 million
(Note: The revenue includes only nine months of income from the SEC Network.)

Big Ten
Total revenue: NA
Percentage of revenue distributed to schools: NA
Distribution per school: $32 million
(Note: Conference finances have not been disclosed. The per-school distribution figure cited above is based on public records request by the Lafayette Journal Courier.)

Pac-12
Total revenue: $439 million
Percentage of revenue distributed to schools: 68.5 (see expenses section below)
Distribution per school: 25.1 million

Big 12
Total revenue: $267.8 million
Percentage of revenue distributed to schools: 88
Distribution per school (continuing members): $23.3 million
(Note: Distributions do not include the Tier 3 rights, which have not been pooled and remain owned by the schools — The Longhorn Network, for example. In some cases, the per-school income is higher than that of the Pac-12 average when T3 rights are included.)

He is quoting a CBS report that contradicts the official press release from the Big 12 conference. Average was $25.2 million. http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/...on-revenue

As for the Big 10, the average is $29.3 million per a USA Today report that has been linked elsewhere on this page. 11 long time members got $32.4 while the other 3 got reduced amounts for an average of $29.3.

The ACC's tax returns haven't been released yet. They may come out a little ahead of the Pac 12 and Big 12 this year as they have the $27.5 million from the Orange Bowl while the Big 10/SEC/Big 12/Pac 12 didn't have their Rose and Sugar Bowl payouts as those were part of the playoff.

(05-19-2016 12:01 PM)krup Wrote:  

(05-19-2016 10:34 AM)Pir8inRichmond Wrote:  so for apples to apples, the B12 would look like this:

Texas: 23MM plus 15MM tier 3= 38MM
OK: 23MM plus ~10MM= 33MM
WVU: 23MM plus 8MM= 31MM (although I don't think WVU is receiving a full share which would skew things)

don't know the rest of the B12 but they are doing better than the P12 and ACC IMO.

Do the B12 Tier 3 deals you cited include the one football game the schools control plus the other media rights (like radio)? The reason I am asking is that schools in other conferences may not have a tier 3 football game to sell but a lot of them have those IMG contracts for the rest of their rights (which vary in value a lot from school to school).

Texas has a separate deal paying around $10 million for the other rights. I think the WVU # he listed may be combined.

(05-19-2016 10:34 AM)Pir8inRichmond Wrote:  so for apples to apples, the B12 would look like this:

Texas: 23MM plus 15MM tier 3= 38MM
OK: 23MM plus ~10MM= 33MM
WVU: 23MM plus 8MM= 31MM (although I don't think WVU is receiving a full share which would skew things)

don't know the rest of the B12 but they are doing better than the P12 and ACC IMO.

That's not apples to apples except for Texas and their LHN money being their tier3 for TV ONLY. West Virginia's "8MM" is more than just tv money for 1 football game and 8 basketball games. It includes signage, concessions, coach's shows, radio shows, pouring rights and EVERYTHING ELSE EVERYONE ELSE GETS FROM THEIR TIER3 deals. Even teams in the SEC, Big 10, Pac 12,ACC and EVEN TEXAS have tier 3 deals that pays them millions of dollars too. It's everything except TV. It's not a conference distribution.

We go through this every year. Big 12 fans want to piggy back off of UT's $15M LHN money and include their own deals which have more than just TV in it to boost their revenue when these CONFERENCE distribution articles come out.