(05-25-2017 10:26 AM)JRsec Wrote: (05-25-2017 08:48 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote: here is a much more accurate breakdown of the numbers by a person that can actually do math and that understands the difference between revenue and profit (or money left to distribute after expenses) and he has often been correct for several years
http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/05/18/co...ectacular/
2016 (actual)
SEC: $40.5 million
Big Ten: $34.8 million
Pac-12: $28.7 million
Big 12: $28.45 million
(The ACC has not reported FY16.)
2017 (projected)
SEC: $44 million
Big Ten: $38 million
Big 12: $34 million (per commissioner Bob Bowlsby)
Pac-12: $29.5 million
2018 (projected)
SEC: $45+ million
Big Ten: $45 million (new Tier 1 deal)
Big 12: $37.5 million
Pac-12: $32.5 million
Well Todge how does that vary from what I presented? I would hope after 40 years of running "for profit" and "non profit" numbers for board meetings, business meetings, and sales presentations that I might know the difference. But when you have access to revenue numbers you talk revenue. NET profit numbers are meaningless since many state institutions spend every penny they get for fear of loss of appropriations. Privates may have more accurate numbers, but that depends on what they want to show and not show. But hey, I thought everyone knew that already.
The information you gave on the debts for PAC & Big 12 schools was a good post. But the San Jose Mercury News, while a good paper, is just reporting somebody else's projections and that's all they are until the numbers are reported. But I totally agree that when the Big 10's new contract kicks in they will be in line with the SEC's TV revenue. But that's all I agree with. ACC projections as you stated are worthless until we see what the network does or doesn't do. As with the PAC the Big 10's cost of doing business is higher than in the South and Southwest and even the lower half of the ACC. So your point on things being relative is a good one.
The fact remains that those Gross Revenue Totals are untainted for the most part. The SEC averaged 14 million more per school in gross revenue than the Big 10 and over 36 million more than the ACC last year. And yes that's real money made from ticket sales, donations for the right to purchase tickets, concessions, merchandise sales, and that part of most folks T3 rights that don't involve TV.
That's why with the rest of realignment before us, I'm not particularly worried, just amused. If Texas and Oklahoma both headed to the Big 10 they would boost the Big 10's payouts by a very nice 5 million per school. When all revenue figures are in that leaves the SEC with about a 6 million dollar advantage once the Big 10 actually does earn as much TV revenue as the SEC.
So to me it means that we are perfectly fine at 14. If we get a plumb fantastic! If we don't so what! But just one plumb locks us into these revenue advantages for a long long time or until the economy completely goes bust which ever comes first.
1. YOU have not really presented any actual numbers
2. you presented a very meaningless article to start this thread that talks about gross conference revenues with no regard for the number of teams in a conference or the expenses per conference
3. you tried to talk about the "P4" after some others that are math challenged pretended that the PAC 12 was paying out in the $40 million dollar range
I showed that to be totally and completely false and showed there if there is a "P4" then there is really more like a "P3" or even more likely a "P2" because as I CLEARLY showed the Big 12 and PAC 12 are going to be in about the same range of revenue for the foreseeable future barring the highly unlikely situation of the PAC12n either finding a massive new revenue course or massively cutting expenses
and the ACC will not even put their numbers out there and the last time they did they were slightly ahead of the Big 12, but that was in conjunction with the Maryland payment being distributed which would equal about $2 million per ACC member
4. you tried to say that the debt for Oregon was really not a major factor
in fact Oregon in a pretty respectable manner actually recognizes that themselves which is why their athletics finances are so easily found
because when all of the "big money talk" started a few years back Oregon wanted to make clear to their fans and supporters that it did not mean "now is the time to coast" and they wanted to make clear that payouts were graduated over the life of the contract and that Oregon still needed their support ro sustain their place in athletics
5. I have no idea what ticket sales and seat licenses has to do with a discussion of conference revenues and how those equate between conferences
this since conferences are not responsible for that and are not distributing those and thus they have nothing to do with conference revenues, conference expenses and conference distributions to members
6. about the only thing you MIGHT be correct about and the only real number you tossed out is the Big 10 will see a $5 million dollar bump over past distributions
but there is something strange with the Big 10 numbers
the last numbers they "released" (well did not actually release individual schools released them) were in the $32 million dollar range in 2014-15
that was with a $10 million BTN profit share and that would have been about $11.5 million from their deals with ESPN, Fox and CBS at the time that averages $134.7 million per year
that content now pays $440 million on average in the new 6 year deal
but prior to that $10 million BTN profit share the BTN per share distribution had gone down with NU getting a larger share and that was before RU and MD were added
so if you look at the numbers for NCAA money, Football Playoff Money, Rose Bowl money and the prior deals Vs the current deals it would appear that the Big 10 might be heading to a $50+ million dollar distribution soon
but then I believe the Big 10 past deals POSSIBLY scaled much higher at the end Vs the beginning, I believe the BTN profits were not distributed evenly each year and I think to start the new deals will still scale, but that scale is of course only over 6 years
so while the Big 10 might be close to the SEC SEC SEC in the next year or so unless they were really playing games with the BTN profits and holding money back the Big 10 should move ahead by a fair amount
7. Jon Wilner is not using "someone elses's numbers he is doing a rare thing in this day and age and he is actually reporting and using RELEVANT information to do so
he is not just tossing out REVENUES without regard to the number of teams in a conference or without regard to the fact that the PAC 12 specifically has massively higher expenses because they pay 100 of the cost of running their network
and his projections from the future come from the BUDGETS OF PAC 12 MEMBERS and more importantly for several years running his numbers have been highly accurate especially with respect to the PAC 12
8. it is ridiculous to make the argument that revenues only matter because you are going to spend all you get.....all the more ridiculous to make that in regards to CONFERENCE REVENUES since the goal of a CONFERENCE should be to pass as much of that revenue along as possible to members
so again when you look at conferences with 20% to 40% more mouths to feed that MATTERS and when you look at a conference that has 100% of the expense of running their network to contend with that matters
there is no massive benefit to Cal or Oregon with respect to their athletics programs INDIVIDUALLY because the PAC 12 has massively higher expenses related to the PAC12n because the SEC SEC SEC, ACC, Big 10 and the Big 12 are not missing out on getting tons of their events covered on TV especially their major revenue sports and even more so to the tune of tens of millions of dollars per program related to what it would cost to own and operate their own network for those mostly Olympic sports broadcast and reruns of 1973 games and events
and spending all you take in still matters if you spend MORE than you take in and start running $150 to $450 million in DEBT and now you spend a large chunk of what you take in on servicing that DEBT instead of on other things
all the more so when you have the same or lower conference distributions than others and even more so when some of those programs have lower TOTAL revenues AND much higher academic side subsidies to match while servicing much larger amounts of debt
9. you POSSIBLY being right on the Big 10 not moving well past the SEC SEC SEC in a year or so does not change what I was correctly addressing in my post
that
A. revenues = not distribution
B. the Big 12 is not falling behind ALL the other "P4" as some tried to demonstrate with stupid scales or by saying "P4"
C. the Big 12 is in much better financial shape from top to bottom than the PAC 12
D. there are a great deal of factors especially financially that would make the PAC 12 unattractive to Texas and OU specifically joining a conference with a few big winners and a lot of low revenue teams with high debt
not to mention there is no sign the PAC 12 is going to leave the Big 12 behind in revenues and in fact there is a sign the Big 12 might pull meaningfully ahead of the PAC 12 exclusive of any other 3rd tier MEDIA deals like the LHN or Sooner Sports network
10. so distributions to individual members matter much more than total conference revenues, debt matters, conference expenses matter
and if you want to talk about total member income or budgets and academic subsidies especially with debt and debt service includes the Big 12 is not the one that should be looked at as outside some imagined "P4" especially if you look at the lower end members of the conference relative to the lower end members in all the other conferences
/
FY 2016 Conference Revenue
