Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
FY 2016 Conference Revenue
Author Message
billybobby777 Offline
The REAL BillyBobby
*

Posts: 11,898
Joined: May 2013
Reputation: 502
I Root For: ECU, Army
Location: Houston dont sleepon
Post: #61
RE: FY 2016 Conference Revenue
(05-25-2017 06:02 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  
(05-25-2017 05:48 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  
(05-25-2017 02:10 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  
(05-24-2017 11:05 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  I've not been all over the west but I've spent time in Seattle, LA, and Phoenix. My impression, the people in the stands are just as interested and just as passionate in the West as the people in the stands in Ohio and Alabama.

The difference is the masses not in the stands. You don't have to spend much time in Ohio or Georgia to encounter people with a team license plate or bumper sticker wearing a team shirt who never or rarely attend a game, that doesn't seem present in the west.

On the beaches in California I didn't see anyone flying an Arizona State flag or sitting under a Stanford pop up tailgate tent. On the Florida gulf coast, looks like damn college game day. Saw a guy with an AState popup and when I walk up to say hi they are talking college football with a guy wearing a Troy hat, a Bama fan and an UGA fan.

Pac-12 plays some great ball and has some great traditional programs, the only issue they have is the mass populace isn't bat guano crazy over college football.

Ok, when it comes to the Pac 12, and this is going to be weird for me to say this, but you have to treat California like the East Coast, which is to say this: Californians LOVE NFL football. They are as bat guano crazy for the NFL as southerners are bat guano crazy for college football. Now if you go north or south of California or even west of it, you'll see that things are different. Oregon's pretty crazy about its Ducks and Beavers (although Beavers to a lesser extent), and in the state of Washington you'd probably find a similar situation to how things are in the state of Georgia with the Huskies and the Seahawks sharing popularity and the Cougars trying to play spoiler just like how in Georgia the Bulldogs and Falcons share popularity and the Yellowjackets trying to play spoiler.
Arizona State and Arizona are pretty popular in their home states as well. Colorado is very much like California where the NFL just about completely dominates. Utah is Utah. USC is a freak of nature in California, as they actually have a pretty significant "t-shirt" fanbase following as do UCLA & Fresno to lesser extents. Cal, Stanford, SJSU, SDSU are very similar to SMU, TCU, North Texas, Pittsburgh, Temple, Rutgers, Syracuse, Boston College, UMass, etc. in that the NFL dwarfs them in popularity. Excluding California & Colorado from the mix, I'd say that college football on the West Coast is still one rung down from the SEC in popularity because the West has a lot more natural beauty in its states than the South does. How many people make it their life's goal to visit the states of Alabama and Arkansas during the summer? Not many, I can guarantee you. The same could be said of the states of Michigan and Ohio. If I lived in Oregon, I can guarantee that my post count would be even lower than what it is now because I would be out enjoying Oregon's natural beauty a lot!! Does Alabama have a lot of natural beauty? No, it does not. It has some, but it pales in comparison to a state like Oregon.

I disagree. I've lived in California for 2 years now, and they don't care about NFL or college football as much as people in Ohio do.

Let's put it this way: the NFL is leaving 2 cities in California because the politicians knew that only a few taxpayers would care if the NFL left on their watch.

Compared to the rest of the country, Californians care a lot about the weather, politics, the weather, cars, the weather, and some individual sports like skateboarding, biking, and surfing. Team sports are just not a priority here (my theory is it's because the average Californian doesn't play well with others).


So why are the Dodgers and Giants in the top 4 in MLB attendance? Lakers and Warriors have huge followings.

I wasn't aware that the Dodgers, Giants, Lakers and Warriors were NFL teams. The Giants have a team in New York, but then again we were talking about football in California and the west coast. I'm confused now....
05-25-2017 06:33 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
dbackjon Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 11,932
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 645
I Root For: NAU/Illini
Location:
Post: #62
RE: FY 2016 Conference Revenue
(05-25-2017 06:33 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  
(05-25-2017 06:02 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  
(05-25-2017 05:48 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  
(05-25-2017 02:10 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  
(05-24-2017 11:05 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  I've not been all over the west but I've spent time in Seattle, LA, and Phoenix. My impression, the people in the stands are just as interested and just as passionate in the West as the people in the stands in Ohio and Alabama.

The difference is the masses not in the stands. You don't have to spend much time in Ohio or Georgia to encounter people with a team license plate or bumper sticker wearing a team shirt who never or rarely attend a game, that doesn't seem present in the west.

On the beaches in California I didn't see anyone flying an Arizona State flag or sitting under a Stanford pop up tailgate tent. On the Florida gulf coast, looks like damn college game day. Saw a guy with an AState popup and when I walk up to say hi they are talking college football with a guy wearing a Troy hat, a Bama fan and an UGA fan.

Pac-12 plays some great ball and has some great traditional programs, the only issue they have is the mass populace isn't bat guano crazy over college football.

Ok, when it comes to the Pac 12, and this is going to be weird for me to say this, but you have to treat California like the East Coast, which is to say this: Californians LOVE NFL football. They are as bat guano crazy for the NFL as southerners are bat guano crazy for college football. Now if you go north or south of California or even west of it, you'll see that things are different. Oregon's pretty crazy about its Ducks and Beavers (although Beavers to a lesser extent), and in the state of Washington you'd probably find a similar situation to how things are in the state of Georgia with the Huskies and the Seahawks sharing popularity and the Cougars trying to play spoiler just like how in Georgia the Bulldogs and Falcons share popularity and the Yellowjackets trying to play spoiler.
Arizona State and Arizona are pretty popular in their home states as well. Colorado is very much like California where the NFL just about completely dominates. Utah is Utah. USC is a freak of nature in California, as they actually have a pretty significant "t-shirt" fanbase following as do UCLA & Fresno to lesser extents. Cal, Stanford, SJSU, SDSU are very similar to SMU, TCU, North Texas, Pittsburgh, Temple, Rutgers, Syracuse, Boston College, UMass, etc. in that the NFL dwarfs them in popularity. Excluding California & Colorado from the mix, I'd say that college football on the West Coast is still one rung down from the SEC in popularity because the West has a lot more natural beauty in its states than the South does. How many people make it their life's goal to visit the states of Alabama and Arkansas during the summer? Not many, I can guarantee you. The same could be said of the states of Michigan and Ohio. If I lived in Oregon, I can guarantee that my post count would be even lower than what it is now because I would be out enjoying Oregon's natural beauty a lot!! Does Alabama have a lot of natural beauty? No, it does not. It has some, but it pales in comparison to a state like Oregon.

I disagree. I've lived in California for 2 years now, and they don't care about NFL or college football as much as people in Ohio do.

Let's put it this way: the NFL is leaving 2 cities in California because the politicians knew that only a few taxpayers would care if the NFL left on their watch.

Compared to the rest of the country, Californians care a lot about the weather, politics, the weather, cars, the weather, and some individual sports like skateboarding, biking, and surfing. Team sports are just not a priority here (my theory is it's because the average Californian doesn't play well with others).


So why are the Dodgers and Giants in the top 4 in MLB attendance? Lakers and Warriors have huge followings.

I wasn't aware that the Dodgers, Giants, Lakers and Warriors were NFL teams. The Giants have a team in New York, but then again we were talking about football in California and the west coast. I'm confused now....

You said "Team sports are just not a priority here (my theory is it's because the average Californian doesn't play well with others)"

Baseball and Basketball are team sports. So you expanded from beyond football to all team sports. Does that clear it up?
05-25-2017 06:47 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 66,077
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 3251
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #63
RE: FY 2016 Conference Revenue
(05-21-2017 02:01 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  Revenue is a meaningless number without having the expenses too.

Pac12 counts all the revenue of their network because it is wholly owned. All the money that comes in isn't profit. They have to pay the expenses of running the network from some of that revenue.

With the varying ownership models between conferences, gross revenue is a pretty meaningless measure. It would be useful comparing revenue increases year to year within a given conference.

In per school net revenue, the Pac 12 is 4th or 5th. There have been a number of articles by Jon Wilner pointing out how that is concerning a lot of the Pac 12 presidents and ADs..
05-25-2017 08:24 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 66,077
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 3251
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #64
RE: FY 2016 Conference Revenue
As said by 4X4 and ToddDodge, the Pac 12 owns 100% of their network which means they have revenues others don't have, but also have expenses others don't have. JR's numbers are meaningless with regards to the Pac 12 because of that.
05-25-2017 08:31 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
billybobby777 Offline
The REAL BillyBobby
*

Posts: 11,898
Joined: May 2013
Reputation: 502
I Root For: ECU, Army
Location: Houston dont sleepon
Post: #65
RE: FY 2016 Conference Revenue
(05-25-2017 06:47 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  
(05-25-2017 06:33 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  
(05-25-2017 06:02 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  
(05-25-2017 05:48 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  
(05-25-2017 02:10 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  Ok, when it comes to the Pac 12, and this is going to be weird for me to say this, but you have to treat California like the East Coast, which is to say this: Californians LOVE NFL football. They are as bat guano crazy for the NFL as southerners are bat guano crazy for college football. Now if you go north or south of California or even west of it, you'll see that things are different. Oregon's pretty crazy about its Ducks and Beavers (although Beavers to a lesser extent), and in the state of Washington you'd probably find a similar situation to how things are in the state of Georgia with the Huskies and the Seahawks sharing popularity and the Cougars trying to play spoiler just like how in Georgia the Bulldogs and Falcons share popularity and the Yellowjackets trying to play spoiler.
Arizona State and Arizona are pretty popular in their home states as well. Colorado is very much like California where the NFL just about completely dominates. Utah is Utah. USC is a freak of nature in California, as they actually have a pretty significant "t-shirt" fanbase following as do UCLA & Fresno to lesser extents. Cal, Stanford, SJSU, SDSU are very similar to SMU, TCU, North Texas, Pittsburgh, Temple, Rutgers, Syracuse, Boston College, UMass, etc. in that the NFL dwarfs them in popularity. Excluding California & Colorado from the mix, I'd say that college football on the West Coast is still one rung down from the SEC in popularity because the West has a lot more natural beauty in its states than the South does. How many people make it their life's goal to visit the states of Alabama and Arkansas during the summer? Not many, I can guarantee you. The same could be said of the states of Michigan and Ohio. If I lived in Oregon, I can guarantee that my post count would be even lower than what it is now because I would be out enjoying Oregon's natural beauty a lot!! Does Alabama have a lot of natural beauty? No, it does not. It has some, but it pales in comparison to a state like Oregon.

I disagree. I've lived in California for 2 years now, and they don't care about NFL or college football as much as people in Ohio do.

Let's put it this way: the NFL is leaving 2 cities in California because the politicians knew that only a few taxpayers would care if the NFL left on their watch.

Compared to the rest of the country, Californians care a lot about the weather, politics, the weather, cars, the weather, and some individual sports like skateboarding, biking, and surfing. Team sports are just not a priority here (my theory is it's because the average Californian doesn't play well with others).


So why are the Dodgers and Giants in the top 4 in MLB attendance? Lakers and Warriors have huge followings.

I wasn't aware that the Dodgers, Giants, Lakers and Warriors were NFL teams. The Giants have a team in New York, but then again we were talking about football in California and the west coast. I'm confused now....

You said "Team sports are just not a priority here (my theory is it's because the average Californian doesn't play well with others)"

Baseball and Basketball are team sports. So you expanded from beyond football to all team sports. Does that clear it up?

Actually, that wasn't me that you attributed that quote to. I'm the one who said, "The PAC is more like the MWC than it is the SEC". An observation and experience I picked up when living in the South and going to games and living in the West and going to games. Not a put down.
05-25-2017 08:45 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,744
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7666
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #66
RE: FY 2016 Conference Revenue
(05-25-2017 08:31 PM)bullet Wrote:  As said by 4X4 and ToddDodge, the Pac 12 owns 100% of their network which means they have revenues others don't have, but also have expenses others don't have. JR's numbers are meaningless with regards to the Pac 12 because of that.

So what? It doesn't alter the conference numbers for the Big 10, Big 12, ACC, and SEC. And for the purposes of my discussion with Todge it doesn't affect the schools Gross Revenue Totals because the PACN expenses are deducted prior to conference TV revenue distributions.
05-25-2017 09:04 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
4x4hokies Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,970
Joined: Nov 2010
Reputation: 164
I Root For: VT
Location:
Post: #67
RE: FY 2016 Conference Revenue
(05-25-2017 09:04 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(05-25-2017 08:31 PM)bullet Wrote:  As said by 4X4 and ToddDodge, the Pac 12 owns 100% of their network which means they have revenues others don't have, but also have expenses others don't have. JR's numbers are meaningless with regards to the Pac 12 because of that.

So what? It doesn't alter the conference numbers for the Big 10, Big 12, ACC, and SEC. And for the purposes of my discussion with Todge it doesn't affect the schools Gross Revenue Totals because the PACN expenses are deducted prior to conference TV revenue distributions.

You don't understand how wholly owned subsidiaries are accounted on the parent company's balance sheet.

Gross revenue is all the revenue that comes in. Every single dollar. If there is merely a contract with a television company for media rights then nearly all those dollars will be profit. If you wholly own the television station or even own a majority, you report thr revenue on your books as well.

The other conferences have different ownership arrangements of bowls and championship games. Revenue numbers are useless without more info.
05-25-2017 09:30 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TodgeRodge Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,930
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 264
I Root For: Todge
Location: Westlake
Post: #68
RE: FY 2016 Conference Revenue
(05-25-2017 09:04 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(05-25-2017 08:31 PM)bullet Wrote:  As said by 4X4 and ToddDodge, the Pac 12 owns 100% of their network which means they have revenues others don't have, but also have expenses others don't have. JR's numbers are meaningless with regards to the Pac 12 because of that.

So what? It doesn't alter the conference numbers for the Big 10, Big 12, ACC, and SEC. And for the purposes of my discussion with Todge it doesn't affect the schools Gross Revenue Totals because the PACN expenses are deducted prior to conference TV revenue distributions.


but the FACT is that you and others are, in this thread, saying "P4" and also using ridiculous scales that try and show the Big 12 is well below the other conferences in PER TEAM distributions when that is CLEARLY false

it is not about "defending a conference" is about actually existing in REALITY

when you look at numbers that show there is no chance in hell that the ACC will distribute more money per team than the Big 12 and you still use "P4" or you look at stupid scales that ignore the ACC has per team REVENUES and distributions below the Big 12 you are simply being disingenuous

when you try and ignore the fact that the PAC 12 has massively higher expenses that afford ZERO additional benefit to members schools and that make their distributions right in like with the Big 12 and ACC again you are being disingenuous

there is ZERO additional benefit to the PAC 12 RIGHT NOW or in the FORESEEABLE FUTURE by them owning and operating and having 100% of the expenses of their network especially in per team distributions

again there is ZERO benefit to individual members by comparing gross CONFERENCE revenues because there is NOTHING that the PAC12n brings to individual members over and above what the BTH, SENn or even the individual deals with the Big 12 members brings

in fact the PAC12n because of their lesser distribution compared to the above is a LESSER benefit because of that lesser distribution compared to others

if the AAC has $1 billion in conference revenues all the AAC fan girls (and apparently you) would be in here talking about P1! P1! P1!

but if their $1 billion dollar contract also called for them to spend $988 million per year on billboards in every town in the USA saying P1! P1! P1! and that resulted in a $1 million dollar per year distribution to each member of the AAC then it would be a total and complete joke to talk about P11 P1! P1! for the AAC

because there would be ZERO benefit to those stupid billboards, their conference distributions TO MEMBERS would be below even the SBC and CUSA......so trying to go back and say well $1 billion in revenues P1! P1! P1! would only be slightly more ridiculous than P6

while the PAC12n provides a great deal more benefits than a P1! billboard would the fact is it does not provide anything above what all the other P5 schools out there have as far as national and even regional distribution of content

so trying to ignore the massively larger overhead of running that network and concentrating on meaningless total revenues and ignoring the actual distribution to the individual members is just ignoring REALITY

because REALITY says that having massively higher revenues and then having to spend massively more of those revenues on expenses that provide no quantifiable additional benefit for the members pre-distribution is MEANINGLESS

just like if the AAC had $1 billion in (P1! P1! P1!) revenues per year and was required to spend $988 million of that on P1! P1! P1! billboards across the country leaving them with a $1 million per member conference distribution

so while what I am saying does not change the REVENUE numbers there is simply no way to get around the fact that a conference exist to provide benefits and distributions to MEMBERS they do not exist to provide take in money and then find ways to spend it with no additional quantifiable benefit to members over and above the benefits other conferences provide while those other conferences provide the same or LARGER revenue distributions to MEMBERS

because as of now Cal, UW, WSU, Oregon, CU and the others are not going to be paying their debt or building new facilities with "we own 1/12 of the PAC12n" because as of now no one seems interested in owning any share of the PAC12n that would provide any additional revenue to those members that they could use to pay debts or use for facilities and budgets

IF that was to change in the future well then it would be a different story AT THAT TIME and that MIGHT even change the overall hind site of ownership Vs non ownership.....but as of NOW looking back and looking forward to what might even be reasonably expected there is no BENEFIT to the members of the PAC 12 in having the much higher expenses of owning their own network and in having that result in a distribution that is in line or possibly even below the Big 12 and the ACC

and as the CURRENT numbers show there is no "P4" because even using the totally ridiculous method of taking gross revenues and dividing by the number of teams in the conference without regard to expenses it still clearly has the ACC below the Big 12

and as of now we know NOTHING about what the ACCn will or will not pay and trying to claim it will pay like the SECn is disingenuous as well because we all know the PAC12n was suppose to be even better because of the 100% ownership and you are the one arguing about the equally ridiculous valuations of the SECn Vs the BTN

so using gross revenues without regard to expenses is ridiculous and attempting to say "P4" and use silly scales is equally ridiculous when it ignores those differences in expenses and when it ignores even the actual numbers using the ridiculous method of revenue/number of teams without regard to expenses because that method has the ACC below the Big 12
05-25-2017 09:49 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,744
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7666
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #69
RE: FY 2016 Conference Revenue
(05-25-2017 09:30 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  
(05-25-2017 09:04 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(05-25-2017 08:31 PM)bullet Wrote:  As said by 4X4 and ToddDodge, the Pac 12 owns 100% of their network which means they have revenues others don't have, but also have expenses others don't have. JR's numbers are meaningless with regards to the Pac 12 because of that.

So what? It doesn't alter the conference numbers for the Big 10, Big 12, ACC, and SEC. And for the purposes of my discussion with Todge it doesn't affect the schools Gross Revenue Totals because the PACN expenses are deducted prior to conference TV revenue distributions.

You don't understand how wholly owned subsidiaries are accounted on the parent company's balance sheet.

Gross revenue is all the revenue that comes in. Every single dollar. If there is merely a contract with a television company for media rights then nearly all those dollars will be profit. If you wholly own the television station or even own a majority, you report thr revenue on your books as well.

The other conferences have different ownership arrangements of bowls and championship games. Revenue numbers are useless without more info.

I fully understand it. I was involved for 20 years in corporate sales and the operations of businesses and non proifts for 20 more. I wasn't interested in the PAC's numbers. I was interested in the others because that's who we compete with. But when the PAC schools report their Gross Revenue Totals the overhead for their network is already deducted. You are talking conference numbers, I was talking with Todge about the Gross reported revenue of each PAC school. The word Gross means all and NET means what's left over after overhead. And BTW I am quite familiar with how the other conferences figure their totals. And more importantly which parts of the University's Gross Revenue Figures are NOT reported by their conference. Are you?

The PAC number in the link for the conference didn't deduct their network expenses. Fine! The Gross Revenue numbers of each school in the PAC include their Media Money from the TV leases from FOX and ESPN and their share of the PACN which recently has only been about 2 million per school tops. The expenses were deducted by the conference prior to the disbursements to the schools.

Then included in each school's Gross Total Revenue are things like licensing fees, merchandise sales, concessions, gate, Radio, and any other product not consigned to the conference.

That's why I said a school's Gross Total Revenue is a better indication of financial standing than the NET Revenue. Many state schools spend whatever they take in. Some don't. Everyone has a reason for handling the Gross Revenue so that their NET reflects whatever they wish it to reflect.

Nowhere in my posts did I say that the PAC Conference numbers were precise, imprecise, accurate, or inaccurate. Bullet pointed out the issue with the PAC conference numbers but also missed the fact that my discussion with Todge was about why I use the Gross Revenue of Each School as reported on their Tax Returns.
(This post was last modified: 05-25-2017 10:06 PM by JRsec.)
05-25-2017 10:01 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
4x4hokies Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,970
Joined: Nov 2010
Reputation: 164
I Root For: VT
Location:
Post: #70
RE: FY 2016 Conference Revenue
(05-25-2017 10:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(05-25-2017 09:30 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  
(05-25-2017 09:04 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(05-25-2017 08:31 PM)bullet Wrote:  As said by 4X4 and ToddDodge, the Pac 12 owns 100% of their network which means they have revenues others don't have, but also have expenses others don't have. JR's numbers are meaningless with regards to the Pac 12 because of that.

So what? It doesn't alter the conference numbers for the Big 10, Big 12, ACC, and SEC. And for the purposes of my discussion with Todge it doesn't affect the schools Gross Revenue Totals because the PACN expenses are deducted prior to conference TV revenue distributions.

You don't understand how wholly owned subsidiaries are accounted on the parent company's balance sheet.

Gross revenue is all the revenue that comes in. Every single dollar. If there is merely a contract with a television company for media rights then nearly all those dollars will be profit. If you wholly own the television station or even own a majority, you report thr revenue on your books as well.

The other conferences have different ownership arrangements of bowls and championship games. Revenue numbers are useless without more info.

I fully understand it. I was involved for 20 years in corporate sales and the operations of businesses and non proifts for 20 more. I wasn't interested in the PAC's numbers. I was interested in the others because that's who we compete with. But when the PAC schools report their Gross Revenue Totals the overhead for their network is already deducted. You are talking conference numbers, I was talking with Todge about the Gross reported revenue of each PAC school. The word Gross means all and NET means what's left over after overhead. And BTW I am quite familiar with how the other conferences figure their totals. And more importantly which parts of the University's Gross Revenue Figures are NOT reported by their conference. Are you?

The PAC number in the link for the conference didn't deduct their network expenses. Fine! The Gross Revenue numbers of each school in the PAC include their Media Money from the TV leases from FOX and ESPN and their share of the PACN which recently has only been about 2 million per school tops. The expenses were deducted by the conference prior to the disbursements to the schools.

Then included in each school's Gross Total Revenue are things like licensing fees, merchandise sales, concessions, gate, Radio, and any other product not consigned to the conference.

That's why I said a school's Gross Total Revenue is a better indication of financial standing than the NET Revenue. Many state schools spend whatever they take in. Some don't. Everyone has a reason for handling the Gross Revenue so that their NET reflects whatever they wish it to reflect.

Nowhere in my posts did I say that the PAC Conference numbers were precise, imprecise, accurate, or inaccurate. Bullet pointed out the issue with the PAC conference numbers but also missed the fact that my discussion with Todge was about why I use the Gross Revenue of Each School as reported on their Tax Returns.

You still don't seem to get it. Gross revenue at any level...school or conference... are meaningless.

Since you brought up schools and concessions. There are a lot of schools that handle concessions in-house. They take in all the money and hire all the labor. Other schools contract concessions out and recieve a payment. The gross revenue will vary wildly but it's the profit that matters. Everything from advertising in house to hiring a company like IMG. Do you run the radio program or contract that?

There are numerous ways to make these numbers change without actually making anymore money.

If all that mattered was revenue then every school could pay one other school ten million dollars and the average revenue per school is suddenly higher but nobody is better off.
05-25-2017 10:16 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,744
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7666
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #71
RE: FY 2016 Conference Revenue
(05-25-2017 10:16 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  
(05-25-2017 10:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(05-25-2017 09:30 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  
(05-25-2017 09:04 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(05-25-2017 08:31 PM)bullet Wrote:  As said by 4X4 and ToddDodge, the Pac 12 owns 100% of their network which means they have revenues others don't have, but also have expenses others don't have. JR's numbers are meaningless with regards to the Pac 12 because of that.

So what? It doesn't alter the conference numbers for the Big 10, Big 12, ACC, and SEC. And for the purposes of my discussion with Todge it doesn't affect the schools Gross Revenue Totals because the PACN expenses are deducted prior to conference TV revenue distributions.

You don't understand how wholly owned subsidiaries are accounted on the parent company's balance sheet.

Gross revenue is all the revenue that comes in. Every single dollar. If there is merely a contract with a television company for media rights then nearly all those dollars will be profit. If you wholly own the television station or even own a majority, you report thr revenue on your books as well.

The other conferences have different ownership arrangements of bowls and championship games. Revenue numbers are useless without more info.

I fully understand it. I was involved for 20 years in corporate sales and the operations of businesses and non proifts for 20 more. I wasn't interested in the PAC's numbers. I was interested in the others because that's who we compete with. But when the PAC schools report their Gross Revenue Totals the overhead for their network is already deducted. You are talking conference numbers, I was talking with Todge about the Gross reported revenue of each PAC school. The word Gross means all and NET means what's left over after overhead. And BTW I am quite familiar with how the other conferences figure their totals. And more importantly which parts of the University's Gross Revenue Figures are NOT reported by their conference. Are you?

The PAC number in the link for the conference didn't deduct their network expenses. Fine! The Gross Revenue numbers of each school in the PAC include their Media Money from the TV leases from FOX and ESPN and their share of the PACN which recently has only been about 2 million per school tops. The expenses were deducted by the conference prior to the disbursements to the schools.

Then included in each school's Gross Total Revenue are things like licensing fees, merchandise sales, concessions, gate, Radio, and any other product not consigned to the conference.

That's why I said a school's Gross Total Revenue is a better indication of financial standing than the NET Revenue. Many state schools spend whatever they take in. Some don't. Everyone has a reason for handling the Gross Revenue so that their NET reflects whatever they wish it to reflect.

Nowhere in my posts did I say that the PAC Conference numbers were precise, imprecise, accurate, or inaccurate. Bullet pointed out the issue with the PAC conference numbers but also missed the fact that my discussion with Todge was about why I use the Gross Revenue of Each School as reported on their Tax Returns.

You still don't seem to get it. Gross revenue at any level...school or conference... are meaningless.

Since you brought up schools and concessions. There are a lot of schools that handle concessions in-house. They take in all the money and hire all the labor. Other schools contract concessions out and recieve a payment. The gross revenue will vary wildly but it's the profit that matters. Everything from advertising in house to hiring a company like IMG. Do you run the radio program or contract that?

There are numerous ways to make these numbers change without actually making anymore money.

If all that mattered was revenue then every school could pay one other school ten million dollars and the average revenue per school is suddenly higher but nobody is better off.

And that is why the Gross Revenue figure for the school is still less tampered with than any NET figure. It is the total of all earnings before expenses are deducted. It is an indicator of a school's earning power. And when Texas's Gross is 180 million and Texas Tech's is 73 million it states a very real difference in the ability of those two schools to earn revenue. Whether they end up with the same NET or not is a matter of accounting.
(This post was last modified: 05-25-2017 10:26 PM by JRsec.)
05-25-2017 10:24 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
4x4hokies Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,970
Joined: Nov 2010
Reputation: 164
I Root For: VT
Location:
Post: #72
RE: FY 2016 Conference Revenue
(05-25-2017 10:24 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(05-25-2017 10:16 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  
(05-25-2017 10:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(05-25-2017 09:30 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  
(05-25-2017 09:04 PM)JRsec Wrote:  So what? It doesn't alter the conference numbers for the Big 10, Big 12, ACC, and SEC. And for the purposes of my discussion with Todge it doesn't affect the schools Gross Revenue Totals because the PACN expenses are deducted prior to conference TV revenue distributions.

You don't understand how wholly owned subsidiaries are accounted on the parent company's balance sheet.

Gross revenue is all the revenue that comes in. Every single dollar. If there is merely a contract with a television company for media rights then nearly all those dollars will be profit. If you wholly own the television station or even own a majority, you report thr revenue on your books as well.

The other conferences have different ownership arrangements of bowls and championship games. Revenue numbers are useless without more info.

I fully understand it. I was involved for 20 years in corporate sales and the operations of businesses and non proifts for 20 more. I wasn't interested in the PAC's numbers. I was interested in the others because that's who we compete with. But when the PAC schools report their Gross Revenue Totals the overhead for their network is already deducted. You are talking conference numbers, I was talking with Todge about the Gross reported revenue of each PAC school. The word Gross means all and NET means what's left over after overhead. And BTW I am quite familiar with how the other conferences figure their totals. And more importantly which parts of the University's Gross Revenue Figures are NOT reported by their conference. Are you?

The PAC number in the link for the conference didn't deduct their network expenses. Fine! The Gross Revenue numbers of each school in the PAC include their Media Money from the TV leases from FOX and ESPN and their share of the PACN which recently has only been about 2 million per school tops. The expenses were deducted by the conference prior to the disbursements to the schools.

Then included in each school's Gross Total Revenue are things like licensing fees, merchandise sales, concessions, gate, Radio, and any other product not consigned to the conference.

That's why I said a school's Gross Total Revenue is a better indication of financial standing than the NET Revenue. Many state schools spend whatever they take in. Some don't. Everyone has a reason for handling the Gross Revenue so that their NET reflects whatever they wish it to reflect.

Nowhere in my posts did I say that the PAC Conference numbers were precise, imprecise, accurate, or inaccurate. Bullet pointed out the issue with the PAC conference numbers but also missed the fact that my discussion with Todge was about why I use the Gross Revenue of Each School as reported on their Tax Returns.

You still don't seem to get it. Gross revenue at any level...school or conference... are meaningless.

Since you brought up schools and concessions. There are a lot of schools that handle concessions in-house. They take in all the money and hire all the labor. Other schools contract concessions out and recieve a payment. The gross revenue will vary wildly but it's the profit that matters. Everything from advertising in house to hiring a company like IMG. Do you run the radio program or contract that?

There are numerous ways to make these numbers change without actually making anymore money.

If all that mattered was revenue then every school could pay one other school ten million dollars and the average revenue per school is suddenly higher but nobody is better off.

And that is why the Gross Revenue figure for the school is still less tampered with than any NET figure. It is the total of all earnings before expenses are deducted. It is an indicator of a school's earning power. And when Texas's Gross is 180 million and Texas Tech's is 73 million it states a very real difference in the ability of those two schools to earn revenue. Whether they end up with the same NET or not is a matter of accounting.
It shouldn't matter wether you contract something out or do it in house. How efficient you are with your money is what matters.

A huge factor in "revenue" for college athletics is directly tied to the cost of tuition. Money has a funny way of materializing from the university right before being paid back to it. If your state doesn't allow athletes in state tuition rates you find a way to get university assistance even if they mow your lawn for you.

Revenue of a school's athletic department is one of the least comparable numbers you can find. They get the closest to comparable numbers on the standardized NCAA reports.
(This post was last modified: 05-25-2017 10:58 PM by 4x4hokies.)
05-25-2017 10:57 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wedge Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 19,862
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 964
I Root For: California
Location: IV, V, VI, IX
Post: #73
RE: FY 2016 Conference Revenue
(05-25-2017 10:24 PM)JRsec Wrote:  And that is why the Gross Revenue figure for the school is still less tampered with than any NET figure. It is the total of all earnings before expenses are deducted. It is an indicator of a school's earning power. And when Texas's Gross is 180 million and Texas Tech's is 73 million it states a very real difference in the ability of those two schools to earn revenue. Whether they end up with the same NET or not is a matter of accounting.

Yes, whether an athletic department grosses 180 million or 18 million in a year, they don't want any left over for anyone else to take. They want to be able to tell the university president or financial officer or whomever, "Nope, sorry, don't have any revenue left over to send to the university general fund or to pay more for the use of university buildings ... it's all gone." In other cases, an AD wants to be able to tell the university president, "Hey, we spent all the money we had and we need more, so how about sending us another $10 million or increasing those student athletic fees to $700/year."
05-25-2017 11:29 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TodgeRodge Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,930
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 264
I Root For: Todge
Location: Westlake
Post: #74
RE: FY 2016 Conference Revenue
(05-25-2017 10:24 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(05-25-2017 10:16 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  
(05-25-2017 10:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(05-25-2017 09:30 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  
(05-25-2017 09:04 PM)JRsec Wrote:  So what? It doesn't alter the conference numbers for the Big 10, Big 12, ACC, and SEC. And for the purposes of my discussion with Todge it doesn't affect the schools Gross Revenue Totals because the PACN expenses are deducted prior to conference TV revenue distributions.

You don't understand how wholly owned subsidiaries are accounted on the parent company's balance sheet.

Gross revenue is all the revenue that comes in. Every single dollar. If there is merely a contract with a television company for media rights then nearly all those dollars will be profit. If you wholly own the television station or even own a majority, you report thr revenue on your books as well.

The other conferences have different ownership arrangements of bowls and championship games. Revenue numbers are useless without more info.

I fully understand it. I was involved for 20 years in corporate sales and the operations of businesses and non proifts for 20 more. I wasn't interested in the PAC's numbers. I was interested in the others because that's who we compete with. But when the PAC schools report their Gross Revenue Totals the overhead for their network is already deducted. You are talking conference numbers, I was talking with Todge about the Gross reported revenue of each PAC school. The word Gross means all and NET means what's left over after overhead. And BTW I am quite familiar with how the other conferences figure their totals. And more importantly which parts of the University's Gross Revenue Figures are NOT reported by their conference. Are you?

The PAC number in the link for the conference didn't deduct their network expenses. Fine! The Gross Revenue numbers of each school in the PAC include their Media Money from the TV leases from FOX and ESPN and their share of the PACN which recently has only been about 2 million per school tops. The expenses were deducted by the conference prior to the disbursements to the schools.

Then included in each school's Gross Total Revenue are things like licensing fees, merchandise sales, concessions, gate, Radio, and any other product not consigned to the conference.

That's why I said a school's Gross Total Revenue is a better indication of financial standing than the NET Revenue. Many state schools spend whatever they take in. Some don't. Everyone has a reason for handling the Gross Revenue so that their NET reflects whatever they wish it to reflect.

Nowhere in my posts did I say that the PAC Conference numbers were precise, imprecise, accurate, or inaccurate. Bullet pointed out the issue with the PAC conference numbers but also missed the fact that my discussion with Todge was about why I use the Gross Revenue of Each School as reported on their Tax Returns.

You still don't seem to get it. Gross revenue at any level...school or conference... are meaningless.

Since you brought up schools and concessions. There are a lot of schools that handle concessions in-house. They take in all the money and hire all the labor. Other schools contract concessions out and recieve a payment. The gross revenue will vary wildly but it's the profit that matters. Everything from advertising in house to hiring a company like IMG. Do you run the radio program or contract that?

There are numerous ways to make these numbers change without actually making anymore money.

If all that mattered was revenue then every school could pay one other school ten million dollars and the average revenue per school is suddenly higher but nobody is better off.

And that is why the Gross Revenue figure for the school is still less tampered with than any NET figure. It is the total of all earnings before expenses are deducted. It is an indicator of a school's earning power. And when Texas's Gross is 180 million and Texas Tech's is 73 million it states a very real difference in the ability of those two schools to earn revenue. Whether they end up with the same NET or not is a matter of accounting.

so lets look at the gross revenues and the gross revenues minus academic side subsidies then shall we and we can see the giant joke of anyone trying to claim "P4" (or P6 for that matter) especially with the Big 12 being the one with the issue

here we see the rankings of gross revenues and it sure looks like the Big 12 is not the one with the majority of the lowest teams

[Image: izny20.png]

here we see the average gross revenue by conference

and again the Big 12 is surely not outside of the "P4"

[Image: 331zvuw.png]

here we see the rankings of total revenues minus academic side subsidies and again the Big 12 is certainly not the one outside of the "P4" and we can see that P6 does not exist

[Image: r2qj5s.png]

and here we see average revenue minus subsidies per conference

[Image: yfdbb.png]

so it is clear as day there is no "P4" based on total conference revenues, conference distributions per member, total revenues per member, average total revenues per conference, total revenues per member minus subsidies or average revenues per conference minus subsidies and there is clearly no "P6" as well

and if one still wanted to pretend there was a "P4" they would have to be intellectually bankrupt to pretend that the Big 12 was outside of those 4 based an any of the metrics being discussed or based on any other ridiculous other metrics one could come up with dealing with revenues, conference revenues, distributions or the like
05-26-2017 12:41 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TodgeRodge Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,930
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 264
I Root For: Todge
Location: Westlake
Post: #75
RE: FY 2016 Conference Revenue
just for fun we will eliminate completely the next ":argument" that will come up and that is "Well Texas and OU skew the Big 12"

so lets take Texas and OU out of the Big 12 numbers

here is average gross conference revenues minus academic subsidies minus Texas and OU for the Big 12

[Image: avg_-_Tx_OU.png]

hey wow look at that $84 million is still greater than $79 million and only slightly under $88 million and that is with the other conferences mentioned keeping the revenues of their top schools while the Big 12 has their top schools removed

damn there goes that specious argument
(This post was last modified: 05-26-2017 01:03 AM by TodgeRodge.)
05-26-2017 12:59 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,744
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7666
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #76
RE: FY 2016 Conference Revenue
(05-26-2017 12:59 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  just for fun we will eliminate completely the next ":argument" that will come up and that is "Well Texas and OU skew the Big 12"

so lets take Texas and OU out of the Big 12 numbers

here is average gross conference revenues minus academic subsidies minus Texas and OU for the Big 12

[Image: avg_-_Tx_OU.png]

hey wow look at that $84 million is still greater than $79 million and only slightly under $88 million and that is with the other conferences mentioned keeping the revenues of their top schools while the Big 12 has their top schools removed

damn there goes that specious argument

Now average the totals for each conference and compare their MEANS. I never said the Big 12 was the lowest paid. The ACC is right behind the PAC who is 4th. The Big 12 is comfortably 3rd with a MEAN of 102 million. The Big 10's should be about 109 million and the SEC's was 123 million. The ACC knocked down 87 million per school for the MEAN and the PAC pulled down 89 million.

That's what I have been trying to tell you. It's a better gauge than most of the other numbers. But there is only 1 of the current G5 above the 64th position and that is Connecticut. So there is a divide between the present P5 and the G5.

But Todge the numbers you are using are two years old. There is a more current listing. The MEANs I listed are the most current. This past year's figures had Texas as #1 again and OU as #4.
(This post was last modified: 05-26-2017 07:28 PM by JRsec.)
05-26-2017 07:25 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 66,077
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 3251
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #77
RE: FY 2016 Conference Revenue
(05-25-2017 10:24 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(05-25-2017 10:16 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  
(05-25-2017 10:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(05-25-2017 09:30 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  
(05-25-2017 09:04 PM)JRsec Wrote:  So what? It doesn't alter the conference numbers for the Big 10, Big 12, ACC, and SEC. And for the purposes of my discussion with Todge it doesn't affect the schools Gross Revenue Totals because the PACN expenses are deducted prior to conference TV revenue distributions.

You don't understand how wholly owned subsidiaries are accounted on the parent company's balance sheet.

Gross revenue is all the revenue that comes in. Every single dollar. If there is merely a contract with a television company for media rights then nearly all those dollars will be profit. If you wholly own the television station or even own a majority, you report thr revenue on your books as well.

The other conferences have different ownership arrangements of bowls and championship games. Revenue numbers are useless without more info.

I fully understand it. I was involved for 20 years in corporate sales and the operations of businesses and non proifts for 20 more. I wasn't interested in the PAC's numbers. I was interested in the others because that's who we compete with. But when the PAC schools report their Gross Revenue Totals the overhead for their network is already deducted. You are talking conference numbers, I was talking with Todge about the Gross reported revenue of each PAC school. The word Gross means all and NET means what's left over after overhead. And BTW I am quite familiar with how the other conferences figure their totals. And more importantly which parts of the University's Gross Revenue Figures are NOT reported by their conference. Are you?

The PAC number in the link for the conference didn't deduct their network expenses. Fine! The Gross Revenue numbers of each school in the PAC include their Media Money from the TV leases from FOX and ESPN and their share of the PACN which recently has only been about 2 million per school tops. The expenses were deducted by the conference prior to the disbursements to the schools.

Then included in each school's Gross Total Revenue are things like licensing fees, merchandise sales, concessions, gate, Radio, and any other product not consigned to the conference.

That's why I said a school's Gross Total Revenue is a better indication of financial standing than the NET Revenue. Many state schools spend whatever they take in. Some don't. Everyone has a reason for handling the Gross Revenue so that their NET reflects whatever they wish it to reflect.

Nowhere in my posts did I say that the PAC Conference numbers were precise, imprecise, accurate, or inaccurate. Bullet pointed out the issue with the PAC conference numbers but also missed the fact that my discussion with Todge was about why I use the Gross Revenue of Each School as reported on their Tax Returns.

You still don't seem to get it. Gross revenue at any level...school or conference... are meaningless.

Since you brought up schools and concessions. There are a lot of schools that handle concessions in-house. They take in all the money and hire all the labor. Other schools contract concessions out and recieve a payment. The gross revenue will vary wildly but it's the profit that matters. Everything from advertising in house to hiring a company like IMG. Do you run the radio program or contract that?

There are numerous ways to make these numbers change without actually making anymore money.

If all that mattered was revenue then every school could pay one other school ten million dollars and the average revenue per school is suddenly higher but nobody is better off.

And that is why the Gross Revenue figure for the school is still less tampered with than any NET figure. It is the total of all earnings before expenses are deducted. It is an indicator of a school's earning power. And when Texas's Gross is 180 million and Texas Tech's is 73 million it states a very real difference in the ability of those two schools to earn revenue. Whether they end up with the same NET or not is a matter of accounting.

You still don't get it JR. The Pac 12 has considerably more network gross revenue than the SEC and that is in your numbers. Yet the Pac 12 is netting about a million per school while the SEC is netting 5 million +

http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegespor...g-picture/

Having trouble cutting and pasting the relevant part, but the Pac 12 had $128 million in expenses and distributed far less of their gross revenue. Wilner estimates $80-$85 million in conference network expenses. No other conference has that $6-$7 million per school in expenses.
(This post was last modified: 05-26-2017 08:42 PM by bullet.)
05-26-2017 08:41 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,744
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7666
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #78
RE: FY 2016 Conference Revenue
(05-26-2017 08:41 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(05-25-2017 10:24 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(05-25-2017 10:16 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  
(05-25-2017 10:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(05-25-2017 09:30 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  You don't understand how wholly owned subsidiaries are accounted on the parent company's balance sheet.

Gross revenue is all the revenue that comes in. Every single dollar. If there is merely a contract with a television company for media rights then nearly all those dollars will be profit. If you wholly own the television station or even own a majority, you report thr revenue on your books as well.

The other conferences have different ownership arrangements of bowls and championship games. Revenue numbers are useless without more info.

I fully understand it. I was involved for 20 years in corporate sales and the operations of businesses and non proifts for 20 more. I wasn't interested in the PAC's numbers. I was interested in the others because that's who we compete with. But when the PAC schools report their Gross Revenue Totals the overhead for their network is already deducted. You are talking conference numbers, I was talking with Todge about the Gross reported revenue of each PAC school. The word Gross means all and NET means what's left over after overhead. And BTW I am quite familiar with how the other conferences figure their totals. And more importantly which parts of the University's Gross Revenue Figures are NOT reported by their conference. Are you?

The PAC number in the link for the conference didn't deduct their network expenses. Fine! The Gross Revenue numbers of each school in the PAC include their Media Money from the TV leases from FOX and ESPN and their share of the PACN which recently has only been about 2 million per school tops. The expenses were deducted by the conference prior to the disbursements to the schools.

Then included in each school's Gross Total Revenue are things like licensing fees, merchandise sales, concessions, gate, Radio, and any other product not consigned to the conference.

That's why I said a school's Gross Total Revenue is a better indication of financial standing than the NET Revenue. Many state schools spend whatever they take in. Some don't. Everyone has a reason for handling the Gross Revenue so that their NET reflects whatever they wish it to reflect.

Nowhere in my posts did I say that the PAC Conference numbers were precise, imprecise, accurate, or inaccurate. Bullet pointed out the issue with the PAC conference numbers but also missed the fact that my discussion with Todge was about why I use the Gross Revenue of Each School as reported on their Tax Returns.

You still don't seem to get it. Gross revenue at any level...school or conference... are meaningless.

Since you brought up schools and concessions. There are a lot of schools that handle concessions in-house. They take in all the money and hire all the labor. Other schools contract concessions out and recieve a payment. The gross revenue will vary wildly but it's the profit that matters. Everything from advertising in house to hiring a company like IMG. Do you run the radio program or contract that?

There are numerous ways to make these numbers change without actually making anymore money.

If all that mattered was revenue then every school could pay one other school ten million dollars and the average revenue per school is suddenly higher but nobody is better off.

And that is why the Gross Revenue figure for the school is still less tampered with than any NET figure. It is the total of all earnings before expenses are deducted. It is an indicator of a school's earning power. And when Texas's Gross is 180 million and Texas Tech's is 73 million it states a very real difference in the ability of those two schools to earn revenue. Whether they end up with the same NET or not is a matter of accounting.

You still don't get it JR. The Pac 12 has considerably more network gross revenue than the SEC and that is in your numbers. Yet the Pac 12 is netting about a million per school while the SEC is netting 5 million +

http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegespor...g-picture/

Having trouble cutting and pasting the relevant part, but the Pac 12 had $128 million in expenses and distributed far less of their gross revenue. Wilner estimates $80-$85 million in conference network expenses. No other conference has that $6-$7 million per school in expenses.

Hey Bullet You Don't get it!!! The danged OP was about the conferences Gross Revenue for this PAST year. The SEC was 150 million ahead of the PAC. The PAC was ahead of the Big 10. They probably wouldn't have been if the expenses had been deducted which was 4 x 4's point and one you acknowledged.

SEC: 639 million Gross Conference Revenue
PAC: 488 million
B1G: 483 million

Then in my discussions with Todge, which apparently you didn't read! The discussion turned away from Conference Gross Revenue for the FY ending June 30th 2016 and was about the reported Gross Revenue Totals of each individual school which when averaged as a group gave us a MEAN Gross Revenue Total for Conference Schools which is quite different than the MEAN Gross Revenue of the Conferences because it includes ALL revenue sources, not just media & bowl and tournament money. And those figures for the PAC schools include the overhead reductions from the PAC. So the MEAN Revenue for Conference Schools broke down like this:
SEC: 123 million
B1G: 109 million
B12: 102 million
PAC: 89 million
ACC: 87 million

The link you provided was for FY 14 & 15 and not even relevant to the discussion at hand.

Conference Revenue represents the apples in this discussion. Conference Schools MEAN Gross Total Revenue represents oranges in this discussion. And you last OP just tossed in bananas and brown ones at that because it is old info. The article was from May 2016 for FY 2015.
(This post was last modified: 05-26-2017 09:13 PM by JRsec.)
05-26-2017 09:04 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.