Article by Wilner
https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/05/03/p...ssion=true
For the first time, Pac-12 revenue topped the $500 million mark.
The key number isn’t the $509 million in revenue but the $371 million that was distributed to the campuses
That $371 million breaks down to $30.9 million per school.
That’s an eight percent year-over-year and a tad higher than the latest Hotline estimates of $30.5 million per school.
Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk
[quote='TerpsNPhoenix' pid='15281234' dateline='1525375781']
Article by Wilner
https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/05/03/p...ssion=true
...The SEC distributed $41 million per school, while the Big 12 sent $34.3 million to its campuses.
The Big Ten and ACC have yet to report, but count on the former being far closer to the SEC than the Pac-12.
There are three additional pieces of context to consider:
1) The Big 12’s per-school payout ($34.3 million) does not include the Tier Three (i.e., local) media rights.
While the conference’s average annual Tier Three revenue is skewed because of The Longhorn Network, the majority of campuses are believed to generate at least $1 million (net) from local media deals.
Add that to the revenue figure, and Big 12 schools are over $35 million for FY17.
The Pac-12 uses a different structure: Because the conference owns the Tier Three rights, that income is included in the reported distribution figure.
2) [i][i]The Pac-12’s average payout is typically a gross number, in that it does not include the costs associated with buying the Tier Three rights from previous stakeholders (IMG, Learfield, etc).
[/i]While the conference handles the transactions, the schools are on the hook for the buyback costs. That amount, withheld from the paychecks sent to the campuses, is not included in the distribution figure the conference reports in its 990s.
For example, an Arizona official told the Hotline last spring that the Wildcats have $1.5 million withheld annually from the buyback of their Tier Three rights.
Factoring that figure into the FY17 numbers just released,
Arizona’s net from the conference would be closer to $29 million than $31 million.
[/i]
Wilner continues to dig in the Pac-12 financial info. Interesting results raising some eyebrows and questions.
https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/05/11/p...ssion=true
Difference in what the TV rights *should* be vs what's reported.
Annual tally of disparity
FY13: $13.3 million
FY14: $19.1 million
FY15: $22.5 million
FY16: $29.5 million
FY17: $27.9 million
Total: $112.3 million
Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk
(05-11-2018 09:41 AM)TerpsNPhoenix Wrote: [ -> ]Wilner continues to dig in the Pac-12 financial info. Interesting results raising some eyebrows and questions.
https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/05/11/p...ssion=true
Difference in what the TV rights *should* be vs what's reported.
Annual tally of disparity
FY13: $13.3 million
FY14: $19.1 million
FY15: $22.5 million
FY16: $29.5 million
FY17: $27.9 million
Total: $112.3 million
Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk
I didn't know that Larry Scott was really the Wizard of Oz, "Pay no attention to that little man behind the curtain". And apparently they shouldn't pay any attention to what he is doing either.
Wilner is all but accusing Larry Scott and crew of financial mismanagement and manipulation to cover up the money wasting, i.e., hiding over $100 million that the conference has made in order to cover up indefensible expenditures by management. Trying to make it look like they make less and spend less when the reality is they make more but spend way too much.
(05-11-2018 12:54 PM)Wedge Wrote: [ -> ]Wilner is all but accusing Larry Scott and crew of financial mismanagement and manipulation to cover up the money wasting, i.e., hiding over $100 million that the conference has made in order to cover up indefensible expenditures by management. Trying to make it look like they make less and spend less when the reality is they make more but spend way too much.
In any other industry we would simply call it what it is, embezzlement.
(05-11-2018 01:17 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (05-11-2018 12:54 PM)Wedge Wrote: [ -> ]Wilner is all but accusing Larry Scott and crew of financial mismanagement and manipulation to cover up the money wasting, i.e., hiding over $100 million that the conference has made in order to cover up indefensible expenditures by management. Trying to make it look like they make less and spend less when the reality is they make more but spend way too much.
In any other industry we would simply call it what it is, embezzlement.
Or in DC, they call it government.
(05-11-2018 12:54 PM)Wedge Wrote: [ -> ]Wilner is all but accusing Larry Scott and crew of financial mismanagement and manipulation to cover up the money wasting, i.e., hiding over $100 million that the conference has made in order to cover up indefensible expenditures by management. Trying to make it look like they make less and spend less when the reality is they make more but spend way too much.
Perhaps they studied accounting at Washington State?
(05-15-2018 01:39 PM)Pony94 Wrote: [ -> ]@dennisdoddcbs
The Pac-12 has slipped to the point that there soon might be a Power 4. A chronicling of the P12's issues -- some of which go back to the beginning of the BCS 20 years ago.
https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...-too-late/
That article is incorrect about Alabama. Alabama played 9 P5 opponents last year not 8.
(05-15-2018 04:45 PM)ChrisLords Wrote: [ -> ] (05-15-2018 01:39 PM)Pony94 Wrote: [ -> ]@dennisdoddcbs
The Pac-12 has slipped to the point that there soon might be a Power 4. A chronicling of the P12's issues -- some of which go back to the beginning of the BCS 20 years ago.
https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...-too-late/
That article is incorrect about Alabama. Alabama played 9 P5 opponents last year not 8.
True and most years Florida State is quite a formidable 9th P game. Also I haven't seen the ACC's payout numbers yet for last year. The PAC will be paying out 30 million. The ACC will need a 3 million boost over the year before last to pass them. More likely the PAC and ACC will both wind up in the 30 million range. So the PAC probably isn't going to be 5th. The whole piece was a bit overblown on the money angle. They have plenty of things to be concerned about moving forward and money will be one of them, but it is in house issues that is curtailing their revenue the most.
(05-15-2018 04:45 PM)ChrisLords Wrote: [ -> ] (05-15-2018 01:39 PM)Pony94 Wrote: [ -> ]@dennisdoddcbs
The Pac-12 has slipped to the point that there soon might be a Power 4. A chronicling of the P12's issues -- some of which go back to the beginning of the BCS 20 years ago.
https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...-too-late/
That article is incorrect about Alabama. Alabama played 9 P5 opponents last year not 8.
True, they seem to have butchered the actual point which is usually raised about SEC/ACC scheduling- Eight league games across two divisions beats your own league up less compared to the 9 the other three P5's play. Bama did play FSU as well.
The problems with the PAC's overhead and with the inability to do anything about the PACN until 2024 raises some interesting questions. Will another 6 years of stagnation on the revenue side bring enough pressure on the PAC to lead to any movement? Probably not, but clearly there will be administrations weighing options.