Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
USA TODAY NCAA Financial Database
Author Message
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 50,018
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2372
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #21
RE: USA TODAY NCAA Financial Database
(07-16-2020 10:20 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(07-16-2020 08:46 PM)SkullyMaroo Wrote:  Pay the G5 the same TV money the P5 “floor” gets and I can’t help but think their subsidies would go way down. The networks and massive TV contracts completely changed college football, and a lot of schools are trying their hardest to keep up.

No, TV contracts did not change everything.

There has always been a huge variance in revenue in college football, going back to before any of us were born. Do you think Ohio State and Ohio had the same-sized football budget in 1968? Of course not.

Eh, IMO you and JR are both correct and incorrect. On one hand, anyone who thinks that before big TV deals - which really only started about 10 years ago - created the modern disparities in revenue and budgets is living in a fantasy land. As you say Ohio State and Alabama have always had far more revenue and budgets than South Alabama and Akron. So the relative disparities have been around for many decades.

But on the other hand, TV money has driven a *major* increase in spending, and to spend, you need real dollars, not percentages. We know this because as recently as 25 years ago, a Power conference school like Baylor had a $7 million athletic budget. That was their entire budget. That same year, 1995, Florida, surely as top-shelf a program as existed anywhere, had a $15 million athletic budget. That was the entire budget at the height of Steve Spurrier era.

Even adjusting for inflation, that Florida budget translates in to about $25m today. Last year, Florida's budget was $160 million.

So the big infusion of money has had a major impact.

Of course, Florida doesn't get $135m a year from the SEC, so most of that money is self-generated. During the same time there was also a revolution in generating local money, such as new and hugely increased fees for parking, personal seat licences, luxury suites and generally being more aggressive about tapping donors for money. Major programs found "shale oil" and the ability to frack it, allowing them to tap into big reservoirs of money from supporters.

Moral: If you want Florida-sized budgets, build your fan base.
(This post was last modified: 07-17-2020 08:46 AM by quo vadis.)
07-17-2020 08:43 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Captain Bearcat Offline
All-American in Everything
*

Posts: 9,478
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 766
I Root For: UC
Location: IL & Cincinnati, USA
Post: #22
RE: USA TODAY NCAA Financial Database
(07-17-2020 08:43 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(07-16-2020 10:20 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(07-16-2020 08:46 PM)SkullyMaroo Wrote:  Pay the G5 the same TV money the P5 “floor” gets and I can’t help but think their subsidies would go way down. The networks and massive TV contracts completely changed college football, and a lot of schools are trying their hardest to keep up.

No, TV contracts did not change everything.

There has always been a huge variance in revenue in college football, going back to before any of us were born. Do you think Ohio State and Ohio had the same-sized football budget in 1968? Of course not.

Eh, IMO you and JR are both correct and incorrect. On one hand, anyone who thinks that before big TV deals - which really only started about 10 years ago - created the modern disparities in revenue and budgets is living in a fantasy land. As you say Ohio State and Alabama have always had far more revenue and budgets than South Alabama and Akron. So the relative disparities have been around for many decades.

But on the other hand, TV money has driven a *major* increase in spending, and to spend, you need real dollars, not percentages. We know this because as recently as 25 years ago, a Power conference school like Baylor had a $7 million athletic budget. That was their entire budget. That same year, 1995, Florida, surely as top-shelf a program as existed anywhere, had a $15 million athletic budget. That was the entire budget at the height of Steve Spurrier era.

Even adjusting for inflation, that Florida budget translates in to about $25m today. Last year, Florida's budget was $160 million.

So the big infusion of money has had a major impact.

Of course, Florida doesn't get $135m a year from the SEC, so most of that money is self-generated. During the same time there was also a revolution in generating local money, such as new and hugely increased fees for parking, personal seat licences, luxury suites and generally being more aggressive about tapping donors for money.

If you take out the entire conference revenue distributions:

Ohio State - $160 million (210 minus 50 from Big-10)
Purdue - $60 million (110 minus 50 from Big-10)
Cincinnati - $32 million (68 minus 7 from conference minus 29 from school)
Ohio University - $14 million (35 minus 1 from conference minus 20 from school)

These numbers are obviously not 100% accurate. But the proportions between them are still ridiculous.
07-17-2020 08:59 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
schmolik Offline
CSNBB's Big 10 Cheerleader
*

Posts: 8,576
Joined: Sep 2019
Reputation: 640
I Root For: UIUC, PSU, Nova
Location: Philadelphia Suburbs
Post: #23
RE: USA TODAY NCAA Financial Database
I'd agree the top schools (the Ohio State's and Penn State's) have always been the have's even before the big TV contracts. I think the big TV contracts have helped the lesser teams in the big conferences much more than the blue bloods. Northwestern now has money to upgrade facilities and pay coaches which helps encourage recruits to actually want to play for them. If Pat Fitzgerald or Chris Collins were at Northwestern before the big contracts/BTN, could they have paid them enough to keep them away from other schools? In addition the Big Ten Network and winning more makes them a more attractive school to play for. High school students today don't associate Northwestern as the "loser" school it was back in the 80's. How about Baylor? They really haven't won in the Big 12 in football or men's basketball until recently. Coincidence? In the Big Ten, Rutgers sucks but that's because they are facing a deficit in payout compared to the other schools. They might have actually made the NCAA's for the first time since I was in high school (literally) in 2020 if the tournament hadn't been canceled. Once they start getting paid like everyone else who knows maybe they might be on par with everyone else too. If it happened at Northwestern and Baylor who's to say it can't happen at Rutgers?
07-17-2020 09:36 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
GoldenWarrior11 Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,628
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 602
I Root For: Marquette, BE
Location: Chicago
Post: #24
RE: USA TODAY NCAA Financial Database
In case anyone is interested, here are the Big East program revenues from the 2018-19 year (from the Equity in Athletics data):

1. UConn - $58,966,597
2. Villanova - $51,223,342
3. Providence - $44,736,095
4. Georgetown - $43,199,926
5. Marquette - $40,722,217
6. St. John's - $36,591,921
7. DePaul - $31,235,997
8. Butler - $26,688,373
9. Creighton - $26,596,950
10. Seton Hall - $26,056,326
11. Xavier - $22,860,050

If you filter for only men's basketball, then you get the following revenues:
1. Marquette University - $21,856,683
2. Villanova University - $14,428,932
3. Xavier University - $13,916,975
4. Georgetown University - $13,573,946
5. Providence College - $11,117,186
6. St. John's University - $10,028,677
7. University of Connecticut - $9,325,922
8. Creighton University - $8,590,055
9. Butler University - $8,228,482
10. Seton Hall University - $7,506,127
11. DePaul University - $6,793,520
07-17-2020 10:21 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DFW HOYA Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,409
Joined: May 2004
Reputation: 265
I Root For: Georgetown
Location: Dallas, TX
Post: #25
RE: USA TODAY NCAA Financial Database
Those are not revenues in the public sense. It is a cost inflow (revenues, donations, subsidies, etc.) needed to balance expenses.
07-17-2020 10:29 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 50,018
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2372
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #26
RE: USA TODAY NCAA Financial Database
(07-17-2020 08:59 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  If you take out the entire conference revenue distributions:

Ohio State - $160 million (210 minus 50 from Big-10)
Purdue - $60 million (110 minus 50 from Big-10)
Cincinnati - $32 million (68 minus 7 from conference minus 29 from school)
Ohio University - $14 million (35 minus 1 from conference minus 20 from school)

These numbers are obviously not 100% accurate. But the proportions between them are still ridiculous.

That's a great way to look at it, and undermines the "we're not competitive because just by bad luck, we weren't given a golden ticket to a Power conference" argument often made by fans of schools like, well, my USF.

Bottom line is, while of course the media money disparity is part of the equation, the biggest part by far is still building a large fan base willing to spend money on your program. That's the ball game.

So many G5 administrators defend pouring transfer money in to football on the basis of "it's the front porch of the university! The heart and soul! Without it enrollment would decline and we'd be doomed", etc. But truth is, if the university community really *did* think of the football team that way, as it does at some places, then that wouldn't be necessary. The existence of transfers is strong evidence that football is not as meaningful to the university community as the admins say it is.
(This post was last modified: 07-17-2020 10:37 AM by quo vadis.)
07-17-2020 10:34 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
IWokeUpLikeThis Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 13,732
Joined: Jul 2014
Reputation: 1434
I Root For: NIU, Chicago St
Location:
Post: #27
RE: USA TODAY NCAA Financial Database
(07-17-2020 10:29 AM)DFW HOYA Wrote:  Those are not revenues in the public sense. It is a cost inflow (revenues, donations, subsidies, etc.) needed to balance expenses.

Yep. The two fan revenue categories are ticket sales and contributions. The rest is licensing/NCAA payouts/buy games or subsidies to balance expenses.
07-17-2020 10:37 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MinerInWisconsin Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,685
Joined: Apr 2004
Reputation: 504
I Root For: UTEP, of course
Location: The Frozen Tundra
Post: #28
RE: USA TODAY NCAA Financial Database
(07-17-2020 10:34 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(07-17-2020 08:59 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  If you take out the entire conference revenue distributions:

Ohio State - $160 million (210 minus 50 from Big-10)
Purdue - $60 million (110 minus 50 from Big-10)
Cincinnati - $32 million (68 minus 7 from conference minus 29 from school)
Ohio University - $14 million (35 minus 1 from conference minus 20 from school)

These numbers are obviously not 100% accurate. But the proportions between them are still ridiculous.

That's a great way to look at it, and undermines the "we're not competitive because just by bad luck, we weren't given a golden ticket to a Power conference" argument often made by fans of schools like, well, my USF.

Bottom line is, while of course the media money disparity is part of the equation, the biggest part by far is still building a large fan base willing to spend money on your program. That's the ball game.

So many G5 administrators defend pouring transfer money in to football on the basis of "it's the front porch of the university! The heart and soul! Without it enrollment would decline and we'd be doomed", etc. But truth is, if the university community really *did* think of the football team that way, as it does at some places, then that wouldn't be necessary. The existence of transfers is strong evidence that football is not as meaningful to the university community as the admins say it is.

If the 3 former SWC schools were suddenly in the Big 12 receiving full media payouts, their ticket sales and contributions would also rise considerably and likely would make them more competitive, closer to household names, bigger in almost every way athletically. They would be much, much less dependent on subsidies. Same could be said for ECU in the ACC, Tulane back in the SEC, etc. and that all would be accomplished simply by changing the conference logo and reaping the benefits of that.
07-17-2020 11:11 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Statefan Offline
Banned

Posts: 3,511
Joined: May 2018
I Root For: .
Location:
Post: #29
RE: USA TODAY NCAA Financial Database
(07-17-2020 10:21 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  In case anyone is interested, here are the Big East program revenues from the 2018-19 year (from the Equity in Athletics data):

1. UConn - $58,966,597
2. Villanova - $51,223,342
3. Providence - $44,736,095
4. Georgetown - $43,199,926
5. Marquette - $40,722,217
6. St. John's - $36,591,921
7. DePaul - $31,235,997
8. Butler - $26,688,373
9. Creighton - $26,596,950
10. Seton Hall - $26,056,326
11. Xavier - $22,860,050

If you filter for only men's basketball, then you get the following revenues:
1. Marquette University - $21,856,683
2. Villanova University - $14,428,932
3. Xavier University - $13,916,975
4. Georgetown University - $13,573,946
5. Providence College - $11,117,186
6. St. John's University - $10,028,677
7. University of Connecticut - $9,325,922
8. Creighton University - $8,590,055
9. Butler University - $8,228,482
10. Seton Hall University - $7,506,127
11. DePaul University - $6,793,520

Program revenue is a tricky number for those heavily subsidizing their programs like Connecticut and MD. IIRC UConn is pumping in $35 million from the school and $8 million from the students.

If you look at ticket sales, donations, and rights and liscening as the only outside revenue and ignore internal transfers like student fees, etc., you get really different numbers for some.

UConn only has $34 million in real revenue
Villanova has $38 million
MD only has $77 million
UVa has 80.5 million
NC State has 83.6 million
Purdue has 104 million
(This post was last modified: 07-17-2020 01:01 PM by Statefan.)
07-17-2020 12:50 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 66,301
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 3285
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #30
RE: USA TODAY NCAA Financial Database
(07-17-2020 11:11 AM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  
(07-17-2020 10:34 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(07-17-2020 08:59 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  If you take out the entire conference revenue distributions:

Ohio State - $160 million (210 minus 50 from Big-10)
Purdue - $60 million (110 minus 50 from Big-10)
Cincinnati - $32 million (68 minus 7 from conference minus 29 from school)
Ohio University - $14 million (35 minus 1 from conference minus 20 from school)

These numbers are obviously not 100% accurate. But the proportions between them are still ridiculous.

That's a great way to look at it, and undermines the "we're not competitive because just by bad luck, we weren't given a golden ticket to a Power conference" argument often made by fans of schools like, well, my USF.

Bottom line is, while of course the media money disparity is part of the equation, the biggest part by far is still building a large fan base willing to spend money on your program. That's the ball game.

So many G5 administrators defend pouring transfer money in to football on the basis of "it's the front porch of the university! The heart and soul! Without it enrollment would decline and we'd be doomed", etc. But truth is, if the university community really *did* think of the football team that way, as it does at some places, then that wouldn't be necessary. The existence of transfers is strong evidence that football is not as meaningful to the university community as the admins say it is.

If the 3 former SWC schools were suddenly in the Big 12 receiving full media payouts, their ticket sales and contributions would also rise considerably and likely would make them more competitive, closer to household names, bigger in almost every way athletically. They would be much, much less dependent on subsidies. Same could be said for ECU in the ACC, Tulane back in the SEC, etc. and that all would be accomplished simply by changing the conference logo and reaping the benefits of that.

From their history in the SWC, we know that SMU, Rice and Houston have limits on fan support. That's why Baylor and TCU are in the Big 12 instead of one of them.

SMU has all the donor money they need, but it doesn't translate into fan support. In some of these years, they were 2nd behind UConn in expenditures by G5 schools.

So while yes, ticket sales and donations would go up, it wouldn't vault them from Ohio U. or Cincinnati level to surpass Purdue. Houston would be in the bottom 10-20% of the P5. Rice would be below Washington St.
07-17-2020 01:25 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,901
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #31
RE: USA TODAY NCAA Financial Database
(07-17-2020 08:43 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(07-16-2020 10:20 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(07-16-2020 08:46 PM)SkullyMaroo Wrote:  Pay the G5 the same TV money the P5 “floor” gets and I can’t help but think their subsidies would go way down. The networks and massive TV contracts completely changed college football, and a lot of schools are trying their hardest to keep up.

No, TV contracts did not change everything.

There has always been a huge variance in revenue in college football, going back to before any of us were born. Do you think Ohio State and Ohio had the same-sized football budget in 1968? Of course not.

Eh, IMO you and JR are both correct and incorrect. On one hand, anyone who thinks that before big TV deals - which really only started about 10 years ago - created the modern disparities in revenue and budgets is living in a fantasy land. As you say Ohio State and Alabama have always had far more revenue and budgets than South Alabama and Akron. So the relative disparities have been around for many decades.

But on the other hand, TV money has driven a *major* increase in spending, and to spend, you need real dollars, not percentages. We know this because as recently as 25 years ago, a Power conference school like Baylor had a $7 million athletic budget. That was their entire budget. That same year, 1995, Florida, surely as top-shelf a program as existed anywhere, had a $15 million athletic budget. That was the entire budget at the height of Steve Spurrier era.

Even adjusting for inflation, that Florida budget translates in to about $25m today. Last year, Florida's budget was $160 million.

So the big infusion of money has had a major impact.

Of course, Florida doesn't get $135m a year from the SEC, so most of that money is self-generated. During the same time there was also a revolution in generating local money, such as new and hugely increased fees for parking, personal seat licences, luxury suites and generally being more aggressive about tapping donors for money. Major programs found "shale oil" and the ability to frack it, allowing them to tap into big reservoirs of money from supporters.

Moral: If you want Florida-sized budgets, build your fan base.

1. I never said there were no disparities before the big contract money.
The assumption by the poster I was responding to was that media money would make things equal. It does not and has not.

2. In 1992 about 3 million is all that separated any of the major conferences in TV revenue and the total spread from top to bottom of what we call the P5 today was maybe 6 million.

3. TV media differentials are now large by comparison with 16 million separating the SEC from the ACC and PAC and 26 million separating the Big 10 from the same. By 2024 that gap increases by nearly 20 million for the SEC and another 10 to 15 million for the Big 10 effectively doubling the outputs of the ACC and PAC respectively.

4. The money differential is the manipulative tool of the Networks to get the product placement they want via realignment as it can occur within the stated norms of the conferences, e.g. AAU status and contiguous for the Big 10, etc. If you make some wealthy and others not you control the leverage necessary to move the product around (realignment). And realignment is not finished. We are gong to now move into a period of brand consolidation.

5. What most posters here do is what most Americans do, they blame the wrong people for the things that upset them. The Big 10 and SEC have merely benefitted from their cohesion and existing brand strength. In other words the were easier to build around successfully. But each merely does what they are told will generate them more revenue because the success of conference athletics is now measured more in revenue generation than in championships, and that's not to say championships aren't important, but revenue is seen as both the result of championships and the generator of advantages moving forward so it has become the focus of Conferences. Once that becomes the focus then many things can be justified as expenditures.

So Quo I resent your changing of what I said to make a trollish comment when I never stated things were equitable before TV contracts. The same brands have driven the market for nearly a century and some over that, with some having decades of success and others only a decade of success.

But clearly media money is the current driving force, equaling in many cases the donations and attendance revenue and surpassing it in more than a few cases. The disparity in payouts can be rationalized as long as what drives the payouts can be justified. And as long as all program's boats were floated a little bit higher, and some floated a lot higher, nobody complained about the changes that were afoot. But now that we would need a lock system to place everyone at the same sea level people are finally waking up to what has happened. A tier system has been created and relocation for market and viewership numbers has been implemented to benefit the networks through advertising rates.

So just as I told you 8 years ago when you laughed, a hostile takeover of a disorganized but beloved American pass time has happened. Popular product is being placed together more and more often to maximize and generate interest, and control has been wrested away from the conferences by the power of the purse. Exacerbating the matter has been the tightening of governmental support at the state and Federal levels and this only fuels the mindset that the TV money is needed.

And the NCAA's reaction to this has been to increase the number of Division I schools which only drives the feeling among presidents and commissioners that they need to stratify further. So instead of spreading wealth they are driving a mindset that schools in certain natural echelons need to protect their interests and those interests are no longer scheduling and officiating and rules enforcement for recruiting, or getting along and participating with smaller regional schools, but revenue production.

So the shrinking governmental support, the self serving push of the NCAA to expand the upper division, and the media revenue available have co mingled to create an environment that encourages the protection of interests, focused the interest upon revenue, and has given the networks the mindset, power, and tools they need to streamline their product in such a way as to maximize interest in it through the tube, and incentivize them further to consolidate it for the sake of cutting overhead (paychecks to teams with poorer ratings) and maximizing advertising revenues which are pegged to more precise ways of measuring them than ever before due to technological advances.

The public response is to blame conferences instead of corporate for profit networks. The response of the conferences is to blame the NCAA for impinging their ability to maximize revenues. And the networks encourage the blame being placed on the wrong parties so they can continue to exploit the situation without negative effect.

To be sure there was never a level playing field. But when 20 million might have been the top athletic budget for a university things were a lot closer when the gap was zero budget to 20 million than when it is 220 million to 20 million. And the majority of that has happened since 1983, and exponentially since 1992.
(This post was last modified: 07-17-2020 01:47 PM by JRsec.)
07-17-2020 01:37 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 66,301
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 3285
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #32
RE: USA TODAY NCAA Financial Database
Back sometime between 2008 and 2010 I saw a list of the Pac 10 distributions. USC was $7.5 million. Washington St. was $2.5 million. There was not anywhere near today's difference between the MAC/Sun Belt/WAC/Mountain West/CUSA and the 6 BCS conferences.

That is conference generated revenue. Internally generated revenues probably started skyrocketing in the late 90s.
(This post was last modified: 07-17-2020 01:45 PM by bullet.)
07-17-2020 01:43 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
SkullyMaroo Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 11,193
Joined: Mar 2009
Reputation: 635
I Root For: South Alabama
Location: Mobile
Post: #33
RE: USA TODAY NCAA Financial Database
(07-17-2020 01:37 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(07-17-2020 08:43 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(07-16-2020 10:20 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(07-16-2020 08:46 PM)SkullyMaroo Wrote:  Pay the G5 the same TV money the P5 “floor” gets and I can’t help but think their subsidies would go way down. The networks and massive TV contracts completely changed college football, and a lot of schools are trying their hardest to keep up.

No, TV contracts did not change everything.

There has always been a huge variance in revenue in college football, going back to before any of us were born. Do you think Ohio State and Ohio had the same-sized football budget in 1968? Of course not.

Eh, IMO you and JR are both correct and incorrect. On one hand, anyone who thinks that before big TV deals - which really only started about 10 years ago - created the modern disparities in revenue and budgets is living in a fantasy land. As you say Ohio State and Alabama have always had far more revenue and budgets than South Alabama and Akron. So the relative disparities have been around for many decades.

But on the other hand, TV money has driven a *major* increase in spending, and to spend, you need real dollars, not percentages. We know this because as recently as 25 years ago, a Power conference school like Baylor had a $7 million athletic budget. That was their entire budget. That same year, 1995, Florida, surely as top-shelf a program as existed anywhere, had a $15 million athletic budget. That was the entire budget at the height of Steve Spurrier era.

Even adjusting for inflation, that Florida budget translates in to about $25m today. Last year, Florida's budget was $160 million.

So the big infusion of money has had a major impact.

Of course, Florida doesn't get $135m a year from the SEC, so most of that money is self-generated. During the same time there was also a revolution in generating local money, such as new and hugely increased fees for parking, personal seat licences, luxury suites and generally being more aggressive about tapping donors for money. Major programs found "shale oil" and the ability to frack it, allowing them to tap into big reservoirs of money from supporters.

Moral: If you want Florida-sized budgets, build your fan base.

1. I never said there were no disparities before the big contract money.
The assumption by the poster I was responding to was that media money would make things equal. It does not and has not.

You replied to me and that was not my assumption. I said with P5 TV money I can't help but think the subsidized amount among the G5 would go way down. I didn't say it'd make the G5 equal to the P5.
07-17-2020 01:57 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,901
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #34
RE: USA TODAY NCAA Financial Database
(07-17-2020 01:57 PM)SkullyMaroo Wrote:  
(07-17-2020 01:37 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(07-17-2020 08:43 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(07-16-2020 10:20 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(07-16-2020 08:46 PM)SkullyMaroo Wrote:  Pay the G5 the same TV money the P5 “floor” gets and I can’t help but think their subsidies would go way down. The networks and massive TV contracts completely changed college football, and a lot of schools are trying their hardest to keep up.

No, TV contracts did not change everything.

There has always been a huge variance in revenue in college football, going back to before any of us were born. Do you think Ohio State and Ohio had the same-sized football budget in 1968? Of course not.

Eh, IMO you and JR are both correct and incorrect. On one hand, anyone who thinks that before big TV deals - which really only started about 10 years ago - created the modern disparities in revenue and budgets is living in a fantasy land. As you say Ohio State and Alabama have always had far more revenue and budgets than South Alabama and Akron. So the relative disparities have been around for many decades.

But on the other hand, TV money has driven a *major* increase in spending, and to spend, you need real dollars, not percentages. We know this because as recently as 25 years ago, a Power conference school like Baylor had a $7 million athletic budget. That was their entire budget. That same year, 1995, Florida, surely as top-shelf a program as existed anywhere, had a $15 million athletic budget. That was the entire budget at the height of Steve Spurrier era.

Even adjusting for inflation, that Florida budget translates in to about $25m today. Last year, Florida's budget was $160 million.

So the big infusion of money has had a major impact.

Of course, Florida doesn't get $135m a year from the SEC, so most of that money is self-generated. During the same time there was also a revolution in generating local money, such as new and hugely increased fees for parking, personal seat licences, luxury suites and generally being more aggressive about tapping donors for money. Major programs found "shale oil" and the ability to frack it, allowing them to tap into big reservoirs of money from supporters.

Moral: If you want Florida-sized budgets, build your fan base.

1. I never said there were no disparities before the big contract money.
The assumption by the poster I was responding to was that media money would make things equal. It does not and has not.

You replied to me and that was not my assumption. I said with P5 TV money I can't help but think the subsidized amount among the G5 would go way down. I didn't say it'd make the G5 equal to the P5.

You said pay the upper G5 what the P5 floor was being paid in TV revenue and their subsidies would go down. While that may be true the P5 floor earns what they do because they were grandfathered into P5 conferences whose contracts are based on the Mean value as influenced by the top schools and perhaps mitigated by the bottom ones.

That's like saying that the debt of the average Microsoft worker would be less if they were paid what Bill Gates children received. Maybe he has children, I don't know or care, but the assumption is fantastical thinking. Is Vanderbilt lucky to be part of the club? Yes But they were members of the club from the beginning which makes them family so of course Bill Gate's hypothetical children would get more than the average Microsoft worker whether they ever earned it or not.

That's just life.

Now on the other hand if schools operated within budget instead of relying on taxpayer subsidies, and it is the taxpayers who pay the bills, things would be very different indeed, and I think we are rapidly heading there.
07-17-2020 02:16 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 50,018
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2372
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #35
RE: USA TODAY NCAA Financial Database
(07-17-2020 11:11 AM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  
(07-17-2020 10:34 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(07-17-2020 08:59 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  If you take out the entire conference revenue distributions:

Ohio State - $160 million (210 minus 50 from Big-10)
Purdue - $60 million (110 minus 50 from Big-10)
Cincinnati - $32 million (68 minus 7 from conference minus 29 from school)
Ohio University - $14 million (35 minus 1 from conference minus 20 from school)

These numbers are obviously not 100% accurate. But the proportions between them are still ridiculous.

That's a great way to look at it, and undermines the "we're not competitive because just by bad luck, we weren't given a golden ticket to a Power conference" argument often made by fans of schools like, well, my USF.

Bottom line is, while of course the media money disparity is part of the equation, the biggest part by far is still building a large fan base willing to spend money on your program. That's the ball game.

So many G5 administrators defend pouring transfer money in to football on the basis of "it's the front porch of the university! The heart and soul! Without it enrollment would decline and we'd be doomed", etc. But truth is, if the university community really *did* think of the football team that way, as it does at some places, then that wouldn't be necessary. The existence of transfers is strong evidence that football is not as meaningful to the university community as the admins say it is.

If the 3 former SWC schools were suddenly in the Big 12 receiving full media payouts, their ticket sales and contributions would also rise considerably and likely would make them more competitive, closer to household names, bigger in almost every way athletically. They would be much, much less dependent on subsidies. Same could be said for ECU in the ACC, Tulane back in the SEC, etc. and that all would be accomplished simply by changing the conference logo and reaping the benefits of that.

Well you have to bring value. SWC schools that weren't invited to the Big 12 because they weren't perceived to add value. Tulane is like the drummer who is a founder of a famous band but then leaves after their third album. Bad career move. ECU would just be piggybacking on something they had no part in building.

It really is as I described it: Far and away the biggest factor in program success is home-grown support. If your fan base supports you, because you are Who the Admins Say You Are, the athletic embodiment of the school - nobody can stop you from having a well-funded, successful football (or athletic) program. The problem every G5 has is that it just has not built that fan base, though some - like Memphis and UCF - seem to be in the process of doing so.
07-17-2020 02:37 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 50,018
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2372
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #36
RE: USA TODAY NCAA Financial Database
(07-17-2020 01:37 PM)JRsec Wrote:  So Quo I resent your changing of what I said to make a trollish comment when I never stated things were equitable before TV contracts.

So just as I told you 8 years ago when you laughed, a hostile takeover of a disorganized but beloved American pass time has happened.

Not sure what I changed? Not sure we disagree about much except:

I do think that despite the immense infusion of money in to college athletics these past 20 years, the *disparities* as we fans witness them on the field have not changed much, meaning:

In 1980 ...

Alabama was a huge national brand.

Purdue was obviously of lesser stature but reasonably well known.

Arkansas State effectively did not "publicly" exist.

In 2020 ...

Alabama is a huge national brand.

Purdue is obviously of less stature but reasonably well known.

Arkansas State effectively ... well, I would say they are more known than in 1980. Not by all that much, they are of much lower stature than Purdue, but they have *some* awareness beyond the walls of the school out there.

So despite the dollar difference between these three clearly having increased in the past 40 years, the only thing that seems to have changed in terms of overall brand awareness is that .... the least of these has actually increased its profile over that time relative to the others.

And that's the main point I was trying to make, which you seemed to miss in your ire at my perceived slight (none was intended, btw), which is that no matter what anyone else is doing, no matter how powerful Alabama is, no matter what machinations ESPN engages in, no matter what is going on with the NCAA, no matter how big the B1G media deal is and how small the Sun Belt media deal is, ANY school can build its program if it leverages its own assets.
(This post was last modified: 07-18-2020 06:43 AM by quo vadis.)
07-17-2020 02:53 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: #37
RE: USA TODAY NCAA Financial Database
(07-17-2020 02:16 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Is Vanderbilt lucky to be part of the club? Yes But they were members of the club from the beginning which makes them family so of course Bill Gate's hypothetical children would get more than the average Microsoft worker whether they ever earned it or not.

That's just life.

Vanderbilt is the Microsoft employee who joined the company before they introduced Windows, got some Microsoft stock, and held onto it.

Tulane is someone who had some Microsoft stock and sold it before Windows was introduced.
07-17-2020 03:01 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,901
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #38
RE: USA TODAY NCAA Financial Database
(07-17-2020 03:01 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(07-17-2020 02:16 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Is Vanderbilt lucky to be part of the club? Yes But they were members of the club from the beginning which makes them family so of course Bill Gate's hypothetical children would get more than the average Microsoft worker whether they ever earned it or not.

That's just life.

Vanderbilt is the Microsoft employee who joined the company before they introduced Windows, got some Microsoft stock, and held onto it.

Tulane is someone who had some Microsoft stock and sold it before Windows was introduced.

So does that make Georgia Tech the company that sold its Microsoft stock before Windows and bought Netflix and then traded that in to buy Blockbuster when it bottomed?
(This post was last modified: 07-17-2020 03:26 PM by JRsec.)
07-17-2020 03:24 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 50,018
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2372
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #39
RE: USA TODAY NCAA Financial Database
(07-17-2020 03:01 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(07-17-2020 02:16 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Is Vanderbilt lucky to be part of the club? Yes But they were members of the club from the beginning which makes them family so of course Bill Gate's hypothetical children would get more than the average Microsoft worker whether they ever earned it or not.

That's just life.

Vanderbilt is the Microsoft employee who joined the company before they introduced Windows, got some Microsoft stock, and held onto it.

Tulane is someone who had some Microsoft stock and sold it before Windows was introduced.

That's apt, except since Vandy is a founder, it's better to say they helped create the thing in the garage and then stuck with it long enough for Windows to be introduced.
07-17-2020 03:41 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DawgNBama Online
the Rush Limbaugh of CSNBBS
*

Posts: 8,319
Joined: Sep 2002
Reputation: 446
I Root For: conservativism/MAGA
Location: US
Post: #40
RE: USA TODAY NCAA Financial Database
(07-17-2020 10:34 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(07-17-2020 08:59 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  If you take out the entire conference revenue distributions:

Ohio State - $160 million (210 minus 50 from Big-10)
Purdue - $60 million (110 minus 50 from Big-10)
Cincinnati - $32 million (68 minus 7 from conference minus 29 from school)
Ohio University - $14 million (35 minus 1 from conference minus 20 from school)

These numbers are obviously not 100% accurate. But the proportions between them are still ridiculous.

That's a great way to look at it, and undermines the "we're not competitive because just by bad luck, we weren't given a golden ticket to a Power conference" argument often made by fans of schools like, well, my USF.

Bottom line is, while of course the media money disparity is part of the equation, the biggest part by far is still building a large fan base willing to spend money on your program. That's the ball game.

So many G5 administrators defend pouring transfer money in to football on the basis of "it's the front porch of the university! The heart and soul! Without it enrollment would decline and we'd be doomed", etc. But truth is, if the university community really *did* think of the football team that way, as it does at some places, then that wouldn't be necessary. The existence of transfers is strong evidence that football is not as meaningful to the university community as the admins say it is.

Sometimes, you have to prime the pump. Imagine where FSU would be if they didn't fire Willie Taggart. Or where would the Longhorns be if they kept John Mackovic. But, there is a difference between "priming the pump" and deficit spending, which is something our state and national governments seem to be a fan of. At some point, you have to look at the results and make a decision. Sometimes bad decisions are made, but good ones are also made.
(This post was last modified: 07-17-2020 04:39 PM by DawgNBama.)
07-17-2020 04:38 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.