CSNbbs

Syracuse AD is in favor of it. I don't think they are talking more than a few million difference from last place and first place but it will help balance the books for those that might lose money on bowl games and conference championship appearances.


http://www.syracuse.com/orangefootball/i...cart_river

(06-10-2013 09:35 AM)TexanMark Wrote: [ -> ]Syracuse AD is in favor of it. I don't think they are talking more than a few million difference from last place and first place but it will help balance the books for those that might lose money on bowl games and conference championship appearances.


http://www.syracuse.com/orangefootball/i...cart_river

Yep, appropriate. If the average is let's say is a $25M distribution total, I think it would even be reasonable for the range to run as high as $30M at the high end to $20M at the low end.

Obviously, for someone to go as high as $30M, they'd have to be really successful at football plus a lot of other sports, and you'd really have to fail across all sports to be at $20M.

But I don't think that's crazy. One part of it is simply covering the costs of post-season play. But I think it should be more than that, and schools should have actual incentive to succeed, particularly in football which is the most expensive sport.

It would also allow the ACC's most successful teams to be a little more financially competetive with the B1G and SEC.

If that gap seems to big, then I would first institute a policy that all post-season expenses are covered, and then you could make the "reward" percentage a little smaller.

Unequal revenue has a bad rap, but to my knowledge, it's never been a true merit based structure. The Big 12 did it based on TV appearances, which still was related more to history and name value than to merit on the field. And then they tried to guarantee Texas, OU, TAMU a certain threshold, just because of who they were, and that didn't hold TAMU.

And I believe that the Big East guaranteed Miami a certain higher payout, just because it was Miami, but maybe some of you ex-BE folks can confirm that.

But I don't think a merit based system would cause the same issues.

It make everybody field the best teams that they can! No one can afford to try and take a free ride.

The SEC used to show its distributions on a per school basis and they weren't 100% equal either, though it was a much smaller portion of the revenue being driven by TV appearances and winning a conference championship (see article below). Its a very recent thing with them to split everything equally. I can't find one of the old distributions but the difference between the top earning school and the lowest earner couldn't have been more than $1 million.

http://www.gatorsports.com/article/20081...?p=2&tc=pg

Would be about time. I still don't think it will be done to give a huge increase to the ones leading the way. To many bottom rungers will object.

I always thought this is a good idea. For example, let the conference keep 80% of money from bowls or NCAA tourney credits to be divided up and let the other 20% go to the school that earned them. Say if a bowl pays out 1 million, then the school keeps 200K and the rest goes into a pool to be divided equally among the rest of the members.

(06-10-2013 11:09 AM)Wilkie01 Wrote: [ -> ]It make everybody field the best teams that they can! No one can afford to try and take a free ride.

I like the idea of schools being rewarded for their accomplishments. in football i think the team that wins the ACC championship should receive 4 million of the Orange Bowl media money(with the rest divided up) I also feel that any team selected to the playoff or access bowl should keep half of the payout. In basketball every team should keep half of their earnings for advancing & going deep in the tournament

(06-10-2013 12:06 PM)mj4life Wrote: [ -> ]I also feel that any team selected to the playoff or access bowl should keep half of the payout. In basketball every team should keep half of their earnings for advancing & going deep in the tournament

I don't know about that much. You end up with ginormous descepancies in pay. Especially in basketball when the NCAA actually covers most of the expenses. You want to reward those that do well, but not to the point that those that have a down-spell get crushed.

Anything that has the difference between the top and bottom earners as more than $2 million is asking for trouble long term. That was a problem for the Big XII, even though those complaining the loudest were on the profiting side of the arrangement.

(06-10-2013 12:35 PM)adcorbett Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-10-2013 12:06 PM)mj4life Wrote: [ -> ]I also feel that any team selected to the playoff or access bowl should keep half of the payout. In basketball every team should keep half of their earnings for advancing & going deep in the tournament

I don't know about that much. You end up with ginormous descepancies in pay. Especially in basketball when the NCAA actually covers most of the expenses. You want to reward those that do well, but not to the point that those that have a down-spell get crushed.

Anything that has the difference between the top and bottom earners as more than $2 million is asking for trouble long term. That was a problem for the Big XII, even though those complaining the loudest were on the profiting side of the arrangement.

That would be true...but this money would theoretically be available to all. It's not set in stone based on "royalty" or whatever. I'm sorry, it takes money and investment to win. When one program goes to one bowl game a decade, or one NCAA tournament, and isn't investing the money or resources into changing that, I don't think the schools at the bottom end have much to complain about.

It was different in the Big 12, where schools like Nebraska and Texas were guaranteed bigger payouts based on TV appearances based more on the size of their states or what they did decades past, rather than what they were doing on the field. Of course it sowed unrest when Texas Tech or Kansas or Missouri drilled Nebraska on the field, and Nebraska was cashing much bigger checks.

That's not what we're talking about. If Syracuse invests the money in coaches and upgrades, and BC does not, and Syracuse wins eight games every year, and BC wins three, I'm sorry, Syracuse needs to be rewarded. And they shouldn't have to go to the 4-team playoff to go. That alone should give Syracuse a couple million more than BC, and we're not even talking about from the top to bottom.

It's in the best interest in this conference, who has a history of teams going pretty much completely AWOL for decade-long periods in basketball or football, to put resources into the schools that are making best use of those resources.

And after the bowl or playoff-related boosts, I'm all for doing it on a rotating window like NCAA basketball does, that's fine.

We're not talking about a team getting a terrible payout in any case. Again, if the average payout was $25M, which seems realistic in the next few years, even if you went as far as $5M either way, the worst school would be pulling $20M. That's good money for a school contributing NOTHING to the athletic success of the conference.

(06-10-2013 12:58 PM)Lou_C Wrote: [ -> ]It was different in the Big 12, where schools like Nebraska and Texas were guaranteed bigger payouts based on TV appearances based more on the size of their states or what they did decades past, rather than what they were doing on the field. Of course it sowed unrest when Texas Tech or Kansas or Missouri drilled Nebraska on the field, and Nebraska was cashing much bigger checks.

Problem is, Nebraska, Colorado, and Texas A&M were the ones doing the complaining. And they were profiting from the arrangement, as they were all above the "average" line had there been equal payout. It was not the lesser teams complaining. It was the upper teams, complaining about those ahead of them.

That also was one of the undoings of the Big East. Miami was a great benefactor of the uneven revenue sharing, and one reason they bailed to the ACC was equal revenue sharing (one reason, not the reason). Don't get me wrong. I am a fan of a school that historically speaking would make out like a bandit under such a system. But long tem, when it gets too lopsided, or when one team benefits "too much" compared to the others, it creates instability. That is why the SEC, Big Ten, and PAC 12 for the most part do equal revenue sharing, though I think the SEC adjusts for expenses. To me that's the way to go. adjust for expenses, and a cherry on top for success, but don't go overboard.

The last thing you need is for a Clemson or Georgia Tech, just to use a hypothetical example, to get mad that say Florida State is making $4 million more than them, and start to feel they should look for better options. Nevermind that they are still making $2 million more than they would under equal revenue sharing. Or Virginia and Virginia Tech get mad because they are not being properly compensated for their large media markets. And so forth. That essentially is what happened in the Big XII, only replace FSU with Texas, Clemson and Ga Tech with Nebraska and Texas Tech, and Virginia and Virginia Tech with Colorado and Missouri.

(06-10-2013 01:17 PM)adcorbett Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-10-2013 12:58 PM)Lou_C Wrote: [ -> ]It was different in the Big 12, where schools like Nebraska and Texas were guaranteed bigger payouts based on TV appearances based more on the size of their states or what they did decades past, rather than what they were doing on the field. Of course it sowed unrest when Texas Tech or Kansas or Missouri drilled Nebraska on the field, and Nebraska was cashing much bigger checks.

Problem is, Nebraska, Colorado, and Texas A&M were the ones doing the complaining. And they were profiting from the arrangement, as they were all above the "average" line had there been equal payout. It was not the lesser teams complaining. It was the upper teams, complaining about those ahead of them.

That also was one of the undoings of the Big East. Miami was a great benefactor of the uneven revenue sharing, and one reason they bailed to the ACC was equal revenue sharing (one reason, not the reason). Don't get me wrong. I am a fan of a school that historically speaking would make out like a bandit under such a system. But long tem, when it gets too lopsided, or when one team benefits "too much" compared to the others, it creates instability. That is why the SEC, Big Ten, and PAC 12 for the most part do equal revenue sharing, though I think the SEC adjusts for expenses. To me that's the way to go. adjust for expenses, and a cherry on top for success, but don't go overboard.

The last thing you need is for a Clemson or Georgia Tech, just to use a hypothetical example, to get mad that say Florida State is making $4 million more than them, and start to feel they should look for better options. Nevermind that they are still making $2 million more than they would under equal revenue sharing. Or Virginia and Virginia Tech get mad because they are not being properly compensated for their large media markets. And so forth. That essentially is what happened in the Big XII, only replace FSU with Texas, Clemson and Ga Tech with Nebraska and Texas Tech, and Virginia and Virginia Tech with Colorado and Missouri.

keep in mind i'm referring to money that's not guranteed, everybody would continue to receive a full share of TV money, conference tournaments,& any other conference related venture & each school would receive a portion of post season money but the team(s) involved would receive a little more

I know what you mean. But the argument then becomes why do those teams get more, but we bring more people to the TV. It's a never ending cycle. And that was what happened with the Big XII. Hence why I brought it up.

You can tilt revenue to help those who excel in football; but what about those who excel at basketball, which brings in a lot of money too? Then you do that, what about those who help bring in the money from the TV side? Then if there is an ACC Network, if FSU gets more for football, and Duke gets more for basketball, why doesn't Virginia get more from TV? Then the teams who are "the worst" end up on the ACC Network the most, so then they ask why they don't get more money from the network since they are on there the most? Then someone agrees to play more weeknight games, and they are on TV more than anyone else, and now they want more. And so on. It never ends.

Thus why equal revenue sharing works best, to end all of those arguments. You can adjust for expenses, and maybe a small bonus for winning a conference championship, but any more than that is asking for trouble.

(06-10-2013 01:52 PM)adcorbett Wrote: [ -> ]I know what you mean. But the argument then becomes why do those teams get more, but we bring more people to the TV. It's a never ending cycle. And that was what happened with the Big XII. Hence why I brought it up.

You can tilt revenue to help those who excel in football. But what about those who excel at basketball, which brings in a lot fo money too. Then you do that, what about those who help bring in the money from the TV side. Then if there is an ACC Network, if FSU gets more for football, and Duke gets more for basketball, why doesn't Virginia get more from TV. Then the teams who are "the worst" end up on the ACC Network the most, so then they ask why they don't get more money from the network since they are on there the most. then someone agrees to play more weeknight games, and they are on TV more than anyone else, and now they want more. And so on. It never ends.

Thus why equal revenue sharing works best, to end all of those arguments. You can adjust for expenses, and maybe a small bonus for winning a conference championship, but any more than that is asking for trouble.

You make excellent points. I still think there could be a formula that everyone could agree on, but as you illustrate, it wouldn't be simple.

Right. That's why I think if the formula results in the discrepancy between the top earning team and the bottom earning team is more than $2 million or so, you probably end up with problems. The funny thing is, the Big East had mostly even revenue sharing (after 2004), and we still ha discrepancies like that, mostly again because of reimbursement for expenses of teams who went to the post season.

I have no problem with a percentage of bowl money being up for grabs if it would make some sleep better at might.

Bad idea.
It's one thing to pay bowl or other expenses, but when everything is said and done the pot should be split evenly.

The best I could see is a performance pool. Set aside maybe $5 million per year . Pay out based on conference titles in every sponsored sport (it would have to be split evenly among sports or problems arise) . On top of that, team national titles won earn a bonus, maybe $500k 1 million.

I am not even saying you should do this, but something along those lines makes some sense, and doesn't throw the numbers too far out of whack. Essentially every team is ponying up $350,000 in would be equal distributions, and pooling to reward competitiveness. This way, no one can really cry foul. And even then, if Notre Dame ends up with $4 million in bonuses on season, people would still cry foul.

I'm a fan from a Big East school where uneven payouts were the norm.

So we are used to this concept. But if this were to happen, how far will it go? Many details to be worked out...

1) Will it be for football only? Will it extend to all sports the conference sponsors? Or only both revenue sports - football and men's basketball?

2) Will it be only performance based or will it include TV appearances as well (the Big East model)?

3) If the latter, what happens when the ACCN is launched? If the ACCN is successful in getting on the 2.5 plus million or so cable/satellite subscribers in upstate New York and the nearly 5 million or so cable/satelitte subscribers in North Carolina does Syracuse get a 1% cut of the 2.5 million while the 4 Carolina schools have to split a 1% cut of the 5 million?

I'm making no value judgments either way, I just think there are good arguments on both sides but once you move onto the path, it can turn into a slippery slope.

Cheers,
Neil

(06-10-2013 03:35 PM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ]Bad idea.
It's one thing to pay bowl or other expenses, but when everything is said and done the pot should be split evenly.

Completely shocked that UNC fan doesn't like it.