(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