(02-24-2012 02:56 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(02-24-2012 10:21 AM)stever20 Wrote:  Actually:
The buyout is $5 million, but the school negotiated a reduced buyout under certain situations.
The buyout drops to $2.5 million if the conference doesn’t allocate at least 70 percent of the TV money in its new contract to the football-playing members; to $1 million if the Big East loses its automatic-qualifying status with the BCS; and to zero if the league doesn’t have “an acceptable Western travel partner” for the Broncos.

I want to emphasize this because too many have gotten confused. This does not mean that the TV contract has to show that 70% of the money is for football (because that won't happen). It means the 12-14 football playing members have to be paid 70% of the conference's television revenue. There is a gigantic difference in those two statements.

To use an example, the current TV contract looks like this:

Current TV Contracts breakdown 1
Football - ESPN $13 million (avg) per year/8 teams - $1.625 mil per team ($464k per conf game)
Basketball - ESPN/CBS $32 million (avg) per year/16 teams - $2 mil per team ($222k per conf game)

Contract breakdown 2
Football playing members (8*$1.625MM + 8*$2mil) = $29 million or 64.4%
Non-football playing members (8*$2 mil) = $16 million or 35.6%

So even though 71% of the money in the last TV contract is allocated towards paying for basketball games, almost 65% of that money still goes towards football playing members. That is the difference in those two statements. And that is with a 50/50 split in membership. The new Big East has more football playing members of the basketball league (10) than non-football playing members (8), meaning that 55% of the basketball money will go the football playing members, in addition to 100% of the football money going to those members, which proportionately stands to be higher since there are more football games to be sold. To give you an idea of what the future contracts may look like, I will use the same unit values per game as listed above and apply it to the new membership structure:

Current Big East
Old K_______Value________Teams__Games__Units____val per Unit____Rev by sport_____Rev by member type*
Football______$13,000,000______8______7_______28_______$464,285.71______28.89%___________64.44%
Basketball____$32,000,000_____16_____18______144_______$222,222.22______71.11%___________35.55%

Current Expansion (1)
New Contract___Per Game____ Teams__Games__Units___New K value____Rev by sport___Rev by member type*
Football_________$464,285.71______12______9______54_____$25,071,428_____41.05%___________73.83%
Basketball_______$222,222.22______18______18_____162____$36,000,000_____58.96%___________26.17%

Possible Expansion (2)
New Contract___Per Game____ Teams__Games__Units___New K value____Rev by sport_____Rev by member type*
Football_________$464,285.71______14______9______63_____$29,250,000_____44.82%___________75.50%
Basketball_______$222,222.22______18______18_____162____$36,000,000_____55.18%___________24.50%

Possible Expansion (3)
New Contract___Per Game____ Teams__Games__Units___New K value____Rev by sport_____Rev by member type*
Football_________$464,285.71______14______9______63_____$29,250,000_____47.75%___________73.88%
Basketball_______$222,222.22______16______18_____144____$32,000,000_____52.25%___________26.12%

* Note that for this category, the numbers represent football playing members and non football playing members, not just football vs. basketball

1 - Current expansion is current BE + (Hou, SMU, UCF, Mem, Tem for all sports) & (SDSU & BSU in FB) - WVU, Syr, and Pit
2 -Current expansion 1 scenario + Navy + TBD
3 - Current expansion 2 scenario - UofL - Cin (for the sake of arguments)

This assessment does not take into account a lot of other factors, such as the diminished value of hoops, and the potential increased value of football with additional time zones, etc, and the premium pricing being placed on live football games, yet no matter how you look at it, the football playing members will receive 70% of the value of the contract. Thus no one will get an “out” because of it.

(02-24-2012 03:36 PM)NoQuarter08 Wrote:  Who can prove this 70 / 30 split??? Link.....Anyone? I've been looking for a while now and can't find it. Not here to start trouble so don't kill the messenger. To my knowledge the BE has always split TV revenues 50/50/

(02-24-2012 03:56 PM)monty Wrote:  Good breakdown. Just like the ACC sold all rights at once, so will the nBe and so it might not be as evident what the split that is paid to the nBe vs. what is spit out to the members.

(02-24-2012 03:56 PM)monty Wrote:  

(02-24-2012 02:56 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(02-24-2012 10:21 AM)stever20 Wrote:  Actually:
The buyout is $5 million, but the school negotiated a reduced buyout under certain situations.
The buyout drops to $2.5 million if the conference doesn’t allocate at least 70 percent of the TV money in its new contract to the football-playing members; to $1 million if the Big East loses its automatic-qualifying status with the BCS; and to zero if the league doesn’t have “an acceptable Western travel partner” for the Broncos.

I want to emphasize this because too many have gotten confused. This does not mean that the TV contract has to show that 70% of the money is for football (because that won't happen). It means the 12-14 football playing members have to be paid 70% of the conference's television revenue. There is a gigantic difference in those two statements.

To use an example, the current TV contract looks like this:

Current TV Contracts breakdown 1
Football - ESPN $13 million (avg) per year/8 teams - $1.625 mil per team ($464k per conf game)
Basketball - ESPN/CBS $32 million (avg) per year/16 teams - $2 mil per team ($222k per conf game)

Contract breakdown 2
Football playing members (8*$1.625MM + 8*$2mil) = $29 million or 64.4%
Non-football playing members (8*$2 mil) = $16 million or 35.6%

So even though 71% of the money in the last TV contract is allocated towards paying for basketball games, almost 65% of that money still goes towards football playing members. That is the difference in those two statements. And that is with a 50/50 split in membership. The new Big East has more football playing members of the basketball league (10) than non-football playing members (8), meaning that 55% of the basketball money will go the football playing members, in addition to 100% of the football money going to those members, which proportionately stands to be higher since there are more football games to be sold. To give you an idea of what the future contracts may look like, I will use the same unit values per game as listed above and apply it to the new membership structure:

Current Big East
Old K_______Value________Teams__Games__Units____val per Unit____Rev by sport_____Rev by member type*
Football______$13,000,000______8______7_______28_______$464,285.71______28.89%___________64.44%
Basketball____$32,000,000_____16_____18______144_______$222,222.22______71.11%___________35.55%

Current Expansion (1)
New Contract___Per Game____ Teams__Games__Units___New K value____Rev by sport___Rev by member type*
Football_________$464,285.71______12______9______54_____$25,071,428_____41.05%___________73.83%
Basketball_______$222,222.22______18______18_____162____$36,000,000_____58.96%___________26.17%

Possible Expansion (2)
New Contract___Per Game____ Teams__Games__Units___New K value____Rev by sport_____Rev by member type*
Football_________$464,285.71______14______9______63_____$29,250,000_____44.82%___________75.50%
Basketball_______$222,222.22______18______18_____162____$36,000,000_____55.18%___________24.50%

Possible Expansion (3)
New Contract___Per Game____ Teams__Games__Units___New K value____Rev by sport_____Rev by member type*
Football_________$464,285.71______14______9______63_____$29,250,000_____47.75%___________73.88%
Basketball_______$222,222.22______16______18_____144____$32,000,000_____52.25%___________26.12%

* Note that for this category, the numbers represent football playing members and non football playing members, not just football vs. basketball

1 - Current expansion is current BE + (Hou, SMU, UCF, Mem, Tem for all sports) & (SDSU & BSU in FB) - WVU, Syr, and Pit
2 -Current expansion 1 scenario + Navy + TBD
3 - Current expansion 2 scenario - UofL - Cin (for the sake of arguments)

This assessment does not take into account a lot of other factors, such as the diminished value of hoops, and the potential increased value of football with additional time zones, etc, and the premium pricing being placed on live football games, yet no matter how you look at it, the football playing members will receive 70% of the value of the contract. Thus no one will get an “out” because of it.

Good breakdown. Just like the ACC sold all rights at once, so will the nBe and so it might not be as evident what the split that is paid to the nBe vs. what is spit out to the members.

(02-24-2012 03:56 PM)monty Wrote:  

(02-24-2012 02:56 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(02-24-2012 10:21 AM)stever20 Wrote:  Actually:
The buyout is $5 million, but the school negotiated a reduced buyout under certain situations.
The buyout drops to $2.5 million if the conference doesn’t allocate at least 70 percent of the TV money in its new contract to the football-playing members; to $1 million if the Big East loses its automatic-qualifying status with the BCS; and to zero if the league doesn’t have “an acceptable Western travel partner” for the Broncos.

I want to emphasize this because too many have gotten confused. This does not mean that the TV contract has to show that 70% of the money is for football (because that won't happen). It means the 12-14 football playing members have to be paid 70% of the conference's television revenue. There is a gigantic difference in those two statements.

To use an example, the current TV contract looks like this:

Current TV Contracts breakdown 1
Football - ESPN $13 million (avg) per year/8 teams - $1.625 mil per team ($464k per conf game)
Basketball - ESPN/CBS $32 million (avg) per year/16 teams - $2 mil per team ($222k per conf game)

Contract breakdown 2
Football playing members (8*$1.625MM + 8*$2mil) = $29 million or 64.4%
Non-football playing members (8*$2 mil) = $16 million or 35.6%

So even though 71% of the money in the last TV contract is allocated towards paying for basketball games, almost 65% of that money still goes towards football playing members. That is the difference in those two statements. And that is with a 50/50 split in membership. The new Big East has more football playing members of the basketball league (10) than non-football playing members (8), meaning that 55% of the basketball money will go the football playing members, in addition to 100% of the football money going to those members, which proportionately stands to be higher since there are more football games to be sold. To give you an idea of what the future contracts may look like, I will use the same unit values per game as listed above and apply it to the new membership structure:

Current Big East
Old K_______Value________Teams__Games__Units____val per Unit____Rev by sport_____Rev by member type*
Football______$13,000,000______8______7_______28_______$464,285.71______28.89%___________64.44%
Basketball____$32,000,000_____16_____18______144_______$222,222.22______71.11%___________35.55%

Current Expansion (1)
New Contract___Per Game____ Teams__Games__Units___New K value____Rev by sport___Rev by member type*
Football_________$464,285.71______12______9______54_____$25,071,428_____41.05%___________73.83%
Basketball_______$222,222.22______18______18_____162____$36,000,000_____58.96%___________26.17%

Possible Expansion (2)
New Contract___Per Game____ Teams__Games__Units___New K value____Rev by sport_____Rev by member type*
Football_________$464,285.71______14______9______63_____$29,250,000_____44.82%___________75.50%
Basketball_______$222,222.22______18______18_____162____$36,000,000_____55.18%___________24.50%

Possible Expansion (3)
New Contract___Per Game____ Teams__Games__Units___New K value____Rev by sport_____Rev by member type*
Football_________$464,285.71______14______9______63_____$29,250,000_____47.75%___________73.88%
Basketball_______$222,222.22______16______18_____144____$32,000,000_____52.25%___________26.12%

* Note that for this category, the numbers represent football playing members and non football playing members, not just football vs. basketball

1 - Current expansion is current BE + (Hou, SMU, UCF, Mem, Tem for all sports) & (SDSU & BSU in FB) - WVU, Syr, and Pit
2 -Current expansion 1 scenario + Navy + TBD
3 - Current expansion 2 scenario - UofL - Cin (for the sake of arguments)

This assessment does not take into account a lot of other factors, such as the diminished value of hoops, and the potential increased value of football with additional time zones, etc, and the premium pricing being placed on live football games, yet no matter how you look at it, the football playing members will receive 70% of the value of the contract. Thus no one will get an “out” because of it.

Good breakdown. Just like the ACC sold all rights at once, so will the nBe and so it might not be as evident what the split that is paid to the nBe vs. what is spit out to the members.

(02-24-2012 04:17 PM)stever20 Wrote:  Major problem in the chart. You have Big East going to 9 conference games. Don't think that'll be the case. What are the numbers with 8 conference games?

(02-24-2012 04:35 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(02-24-2012 04:17 PM)stever20 Wrote:  Major problem in the chart. You have Big East going to 9 conference games. Don't think that'll be the case. What are the numbers with 8 conference games?

With 12 conference-playing FB members, why wouldn't you go to 9 games each? OOC games have been an issue in the past.

Play your 5 division rivals + 2 permanent cross-divison rivals + rotating 2 of the remaining 4 in the other division. Or, play your 5 division rivals and 4 of the 6 in the other division, rotating the two missing teams each year.

(02-24-2012 04:45 PM)99Tiger Wrote:  

(02-24-2012 04:35 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(02-24-2012 04:17 PM)stever20 Wrote:  Major problem in the chart. You have Big East going to 9 conference games. Don't think that'll be the case. What are the numbers with 8 conference games?

With 12 conference-playing FB members, why wouldn't you go to 9 games each? OOC games have been an issue in the past.

Play your 5 division rivals + 2 permanent cross-divison rivals + rotating 2 of the remaining 4 in the other division. Or, play your 5 division rivals and 4 of the 6 in the other division, rotating the two missing teams each year.

I don't like the idea of 9-game conference schedules. Half the teams get 5 home games and the other half just get 4...it just seems like you're screwing over half your conference every year (of course, that half changes every year).

(02-24-2012 05:32 PM)TripleA Wrote:  Okay, since 9 games doesn't work so well with 12 teams (which I REALLY couldn't care less about), but it works okay with 14 (and 8 would be hard to do then, with two 7-team divisions), and if some teams have a problem with playing 9, then THAT tells me that the BE plans to only go to 12 in FB. With Navy coming in for 2015, that means the BE must be planning on losing at least one team, assuming Temple moves in, as planned. Unless we're going to 16 FB teams. Just a thought.

(02-24-2012 02:04 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  Besides, if AQ were all Boise was after, they never would have signed the deal with the Big East and instead they would have chosen to stick it out with MWC and help them get (and keep) their AQ exemption.

(02-24-2012 02:49 PM)Boise fan Wrote:  I, for one, am getting tired of hearing the worn out expression "mouths to feed". When forming a conference, the goal isn't to have "mouths to feed", it's to have a group of contributors towards a common goal.

Quo likes to use the term derogatively, as if bringing on new conference members is some kind of welfare or charity. Like Quo feels USF won't be making more money now because there are more members.

(02-24-2012 02:52 PM)k5james Wrote:  

(02-24-2012 01:25 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-24-2012 12:22 PM)KnightLight Wrote:  

(02-24-2012 11:51 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-24-2012 11:30 AM)Bull Wrote:  Maybe, depends on what replaces AQ. Being in the (clear) #6 conference, as opposed to the 7-8 conference has value. Playing bigger names nationally has value. If our TV contract is bigger, they get more money. And for the BE, BSU has become somewhat of a 'national brand'. The union might still be beneficial even w/o 'AQ'. Especially if the PAC and B12 don't want BSU, and we poached all the strong alliance/MWC teams. Lots of TBD in these formulas...

I like your logic, and it fits with the new reality, which is that TV money is now FAR more important than BCS/AQ money.

But for some reason, schools don't see it that way. They still see AQ as the Holy Grail, even though it clearly isn't.

Huh?

Annual Conf TV Contracts now DWARF BCS/Conf bowl line-ups...and unlike 4-6 day bowl trips with entourages of 500-700 plus, bowl games...there are none of those over-the-top expenses needed by teams during the regular season.

TV $$$$ surpassed Bowl revenue quite sometime ago...and odds are, that will always be so. (Heck, a majority of bowl games...teams don't break even...as expenses get shared so that certain teams don't lose $$$ on their 4-6 game bowl road trips).

PS. While most know you just love to argue/troll for troll sake...even your last sentence shows how wrong you are...as those schools that recently JUMPED SHIP to higher paying conferences (i.e. TCU, WVU, Pitt, Syracuse, SMU, Houston, UCF, Memphis et al) all know how the system works...something that you refuse to admit (and we know why...because you have to argue about everything...as that is your shtick).

We can waive our hands about this all we want, but contract language reveals what matters to a party. Boise's contract to join the Big East allows it to bail scot-free if AQ is lost, but not if the new TV deal isn't worth X amount of dollars.

Um, I'm pretty sure it does. SDSU's does anyway...

Quote:--If SDSU decides not to join the Big East as agreed in July 2013, it must pay $5 million. That amount goes down to $1 million if the Big East experiences a 25 percent decrease in total revenue from the prior fiscal year. It also goes down to $1 million if the Big East loses its status as an automatic qualifier in the lucrative Bowl Championship Series prior to July 2013. The exception is the general elimination of all automatic qualifiers.

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2011/dec/13/big-east-sdsu-outline-agreement/

(02-24-2012 06:35 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-24-2012 02:49 PM)Boise fan Wrote:  I, for one, am getting tired of hearing the worn out expression "mouths to feed". When forming a conference, the goal isn't to have "mouths to feed", it's to have a group of contributors towards a common goal.

Quo likes to use the term derogatively, as if bringing on new conference members is some kind of welfare or charity. Like Quo feels USF won't be making more money now because there are more members.

If a school joins the conference and contributes less than they add to conference coffers, then it makes sense to call them a "mouth to feed". If they bring more than they take, they are feeding the conference.

So when i use the term to describe a school, it means i think that school will take more than it gives. So i would never use it if Notre Dame joined. But Memphis?