I thought this might be interesting to some here.
Football Bowl Revenues around 21.4 mill
Football TV contract around 8 mill according to reports
so thats 29.4 mill/8 = 3.675 mill per team

Basketball NCAA revenue around 12 mill/16=.750 mill per team
Basketball TV contract 12-15 mill= 1 mill per team at most
Basketball revenue = 1.75 mill per team

The basketball TV contract i asume because i saw an article that said only ACC had a TV contract that paid more than football TV contract. Big East football was 15 mill before the ACC raid so that meant our basketball contract was less than $15 mill.

So unless there is a major increase in TV contract for a 16 team league in the negotiations for 07 it will fuel that football is king

Cubanbull Wrote:I thought this might be interesting to some here.
Football Bowl Revenues around 21.4 mill
Football TV contract around 8 mill according to reports
so thats 29.4 mill/8 = 3.675 mill per team

Basketball NCAA revenue around 12 mill/16=.750 mill per team
Basketball TV contract 12-15 mill= 1 mill per team at most
Basketball revenue = 1.75 mill per team

The basketball TV contract i asume because i saw an article that said only ACC had a TV contract that paid more than football TV contract. Big East football was 15 mill before the ACC raid so that meant our basketball contract was less than $15 mill.

So unless there is a major increase in TV contract for a 16 team league in the negotiations for 07 it will fuel that football is king

Football is King - has been since the late 80s, early 90s and will continue to be King for a while.

That is until the NCAA goes after the football revenue pie and decides that since well over 60% of their work rotates around football that it's only fitting that football pay something towards the NCAA's operating expenses instead of having all of those expenses come out of the March Madness pie up front before the bb monies are distributed to schools.

Don't be surprised to see the smaller conferences sue for this happen. They aren't going to be satisfied with simply getting in more teams into the tourney - they are going to want a bigger piece of the bb pie and the best way to do that is to sue the NCAA for penalizing them by making them pay for the costs of the NCAA monitoring 1-A football programs.

Cheers,
Neil

If the NCAA attempts to cut into the football revenue of the major college football powers, don't be surprised if the Division 1A football powers pull out of the NCAA and create their own governing body that will cater to their wishes better than the current body. I think the NCAA realizes this, and will not cut its own throat. But then again, stupidity rarely recognizes its own demise.

I agree the Major conferences would not stand by and see the NCAA mess with their golden goose. This is a major reason football playoffs are not going to happen any time soon

Football is king...that's why I am so confused why some would argue not to split.....certianly the division of the current BE is not a 100% certainity but if there is a candiate come 2010 that will add money to football through bowls or TV etc then it is a no brainer


Jackson

Here is another stat to consider since the 2000 season ,last 7 years
The football schools have 29 apperances in NCAA Tournament,played 77 games won 65% and 2 national championships
The Basketball only schools have 19 apperances,played in 41 games , won 54% and xero national championships

It's just another example of why the football schools rule the Big East. The monetary gap between the basketball schools and the football schools will widen steadily as the years go by. The days of specialization are coming to an end. The die is cast. In the future, schools will either be competitive in all sports, or they will not be competitive at all.

bitcruncher Wrote:If the NCAA attempts to cut into the football revenue of the major college football powers, don't be surprised if the Division 1A football powers pull out of the NCAA and create their own governing body that will cater to their wishes better than the current body. I think the NCAA realizes this, and will not cut its own throat. But then again, stupidity rarely recognizes its own demise.

The threat of the split has been what's kept the NCAA from going after a piece of the football pie - but a possible lawsuit or an appeal to Congress from the smaller conferences (who will want more $$$ as well since the athletics arms race isn't limited to just 1-A schools) could force the issue on the NCAA.

Again, the notion that March Madness monies (a pot that currently has 3 times as much as all of the Bowl games combined) pays for the NCAA operating costs up front - costs incurred not just from men's bb (which has basically 13 scholarship players per school) but from football as well (which has 65-85 scholarship players per school) is viewed as being patently unfair to those conferences who have a greater chance of getting some of the March Madness pie than they do the Bowl revenue pie.

You don't think that will play well in a court of law or in Congress?

Cheers,
Neil

bitcruncher Wrote:It's just another example of why the football schools rule the Big East. The monetary gap between the basketball schools and the football schools will widen steadily as the years go by. The days of specialization are coming to an end. The die is cast. In the future, schools will either be competitive in all sports, or they will not be competitive at all.

I agree 100%.

omnicarrier Wrote:

bitcruncher Wrote:If the NCAA attempts to cut into the football revenue of the major college football powers, don't be surprised if the Division 1A football powers pull out of the NCAA and create their own governing body that will cater to their wishes better than the current body. I think the NCAA realizes this, and will not cut its own throat. But then again, stupidity rarely recognizes its own demise.

The threat of the split has been what's kept the NCAA from going after a piece of the football pie - but a possible lawsuit or an appeal to Congress from the smaller conferences (who will want more $$$ as well since the athletics arms race isn't limited to just 1-A schools) could force the issue on the NCAA.

Again, the notion that March Madness monies (a pot that currently has 3 times as much as all of the Bowl games combined) pays for the NCAA operating costs up front - costs incurred not just from men's bb (which has basically 13 scholarship players per school) but from football as well (which has 65-85 scholarship players per school) is viewed as being patently unfair to those conferences who have a greater chance of getting some of the March Madness pie than they do the Bowl revenue pie.

You don't think that will play well in a court of law or in Congress?

Cheers,
Neil

The United States government is described by law as a corporate entity, and as such is available for purchase to the highest bidder. Do you really think the basketball schools can pay more for a decision than the football schools? Congress and the Supreme Court are both for sale, which is why this debate is going on now. If the system wasn't for sale, the bowl season would be Division 1A football playoff season.

bitcruncher Wrote:

omnicarrier Wrote:

bitcruncher Wrote:If the NCAA attempts to cut into the football revenue of the major college football powers, don't be surprised if the Division 1A football powers pull out of the NCAA and create their own governing body that will cater to their wishes better than the current body. I think the NCAA realizes this, and will not cut its own throat. But then again, stupidity rarely recognizes its own demise.

The threat of the split has been what's kept the NCAA from going after a piece of the football pie - but a possible lawsuit or an appeal to Congress from the smaller conferences (who will want more $$$ as well since the athletics arms race isn't limited to just 1-A schools) could force the issue on the NCAA.

Again, the notion that March Madness monies (a pot that currently has 3 times as much as all of the Bowl games combined) pays for the NCAA operating costs up front - costs incurred not just from men's bb (which has basically 13 scholarship players per school) but from football as well (which has 65-85 scholarship players per school) is viewed as being patently unfair to those conferences who have a greater chance of getting some of the March Madness pie than they do the Bowl revenue pie.

You don't think that will play well in a court of law or in Congress?

Cheers,
Neil

The United States government is described by law as a corporate entity, and as such is available for purchase to the highest bidder. Do you really think the basketball schools can pay more for a decision than the football schools? Congress and the Supreme Court are both for sale, which is why this debate is going on now. If the system wasn't for sale, the bowl season would be Division 1A football playoff season.

Apparently then the BCS didn't offer enough to pay Congress off - because it was the threat of Congressional intervention that got the most current contract done which is more favorable to non-auto-bid conferences than the previous one.

Those non-auto-bid conferences are waiting to see what happens over the length of the contract and then will determine if it is fair or not. Remember, despite the calls for equity from the fans, the coalition knows it cannot win on equality, but can win on fair representation.

It will be interesting to see what happens over the life of the BCS contract that starts in the 2006 season.

Cheers,
Neil

omnicarrier Wrote:

bitcruncher Wrote:

omnicarrier Wrote:

bitcruncher Wrote:If the NCAA attempts to cut into the football revenue of the major college football powers, don't be surprised if the Division 1A football powers pull out of the NCAA and create their own governing body that will cater to their wishes better than the current body. I think the NCAA realizes this, and will not cut its own throat. But then again, stupidity rarely recognizes its own demise.

The threat of the split has been what's kept the NCAA from going after a piece of the football pie - but a possible lawsuit or an appeal to Congress from the smaller conferences (who will want more $$$ as well since the athletics arms race isn't limited to just 1-A schools) could force the issue on the NCAA.

Again, the notion that March Madness monies (a pot that currently has 3 times as much as all of the Bowl games combined) pays for the NCAA operating costs up front - costs incurred not just from men's bb (which has basically 13 scholarship players per school) but from football as well (which has 65-85 scholarship players per school) is viewed as being patently unfair to those conferences who have a greater chance of getting some of the March Madness pie than they do the Bowl revenue pie.

You don't think that will play well in a court of law or in Congress?

Cheers,
Neil

The United States government is described by law as a corporate entity, and as such is available for purchase to the highest bidder. Do you really think the basketball schools can pay more for a decision than the football schools? Congress and the Supreme Court are both for sale, which is why this debate is going on now. If the system wasn't for sale, the bowl season would be Division 1A football playoff season.

Apparently then the BCS didn't offer enough to pay Congress off - because it was the threat of Congressional intervention that got the most current contract done which is more favorable to non-auto-bid conferences than the previous one.

Those non-auto-bid conferences are waiting to see what happens over the length of the contract and then will determine if it is fair or not. Remember, despite the calls for equity from the fans, the coalition knows it cannot win on equality, but can win on fair representation.

It will be interesting to see what happens over the life of the BCS contract that starts in the 2006 season.

Cheers,
Neil

The threat didn't work too well. We still have Bowl games instead of a playoff system. Non-BCS conferences still have criteria to meet, and most years it won't happen because it is still all dependent upon a popularity contest called polls.