last year they were first with 22 million however,

-it was only split 9 ways instead of 10.

-they had 9 bowl teams.

with a 10 way split & 3 fewer bowl teams just exactly how big of a drop will we be seeing here???

Very little if any. Those low tier bowl games do not pay much, sometimes not even enough to cover expenses.

(11-24-2013 11:26 AM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  Very little if any. Those low tier bowl games do not pay much, sometimes not even enough to cover expenses.

those figures dont cover expenses only the payouts. for every conference from the sec to the sun belt they only report the conference payouts

last year the b12 bowl payout was 34.6 mill (2.8 mill per team)

yes that may look like chump change compared to the TV payouts, but it is enough to give the b12 a jump over the pac & b10 in total payouts

Everybody knows the payput does not include expenses. If the expenses eat up the bowl revenue there was nothing to add to the payout for last year, so the payout remains basically the same this year without those bowls.

(11-24-2013 11:47 AM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  Everybody knows the payput does not include expenses. So if the expenses eat up the bowl revenue there is nothing to add to the payout for last year, so the payout remains basic the same this year without those bowls.

im not sure you are really following here......

expenses DO NOT MATTER in this conversation. all the b12 cares about is that total payout so that they can claim that they are making more money than the b10, sec etc. (exactly what they did last year)

(11-24-2013 11:26 AM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  Very little if any. Those low tier bowl games do not pay much, sometimes not even enough to cover expenses.

Numerator may stay almost the same, but it's the denominator that makes all the difference.

$22M X 9 = $198M total (2012)
$198M / 10 = $19.9M per team (2013, assuming NO drop in total revenue).

So the per team payout figures to decrease by a little over $2M per team, if not more.

Hey, another Big 12 tread started by John01992. That's different

(11-24-2013 12:14 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(11-24-2013 11:26 AM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  Very little if any. Those low tier bowl games do not pay much, sometimes not even enough to cover expenses.

Numerator may stay almost the same, but it's the denominator that makes all the difference.

$22M X 9 = $198M total (2012)
$198M / 10 = $19.9M per team (2013, assuming NO drop in total revenue).

So the per team payout figures to decrease by a little over $2M per team, if not more.

and thats a pretty big drop

(11-24-2013 12:22 PM)Minutemen429 Wrote:  Hey, another Big 12 tread started by John01992. That's different

oh come on......

i havent made an anti b12 thread in months

(11-24-2013 11:51 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(11-24-2013 11:47 AM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  Everybody knows the payput does not include expenses. So if the expenses eat up the bowl revenue there is nothing to add to the payout for last year, so the payout remains basic the same this year without those bowls.

im not sure you are really following here......

expenses DO NOT MATTER in this conversation. all the b12 cares about is that total payout so that they can claim that they are making more money than the b10, sec etc. (exactly what they did last year)

That is what I said.

(11-24-2013 12:14 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(11-24-2013 11:26 AM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  Very little if any. Those low tier bowl games do not pay much, sometimes not even enough to cover expenses.

Numerator may stay almost the same, but it's the denominator that makes all the difference.

$22M X 9 = $198M total (2012)
$198M / 10 = $19.9M per team (2013, assuming NO drop in total revenue).

So the per team payout figures to decrease by a little over $2M per team, if not more.

Why do you say the denominator changes from 9 to 10?

(11-24-2013 02:29 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(11-24-2013 12:14 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(11-24-2013 11:26 AM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  Very little if any. Those low tier bowl games do not pay much, sometimes not even enough to cover expenses.

Numerator may stay almost the same, but it's the denominator that makes all the difference.

$22M X 9 = $198M total (2012)
$198M / 10 = $19.9M per team (2013, assuming NO drop in total revenue).

So the per team payout figures to decrease by a little over $2M per team, if not more.

hy do you say the denominator changes from 9 to 10?

did you read the OP?????

one of the big changes from this year vs last year is that the revenue gets changed from being split 9 ways to 10 (tcu/wvu only got half shares last year)

(11-24-2013 03:04 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(11-24-2013 02:29 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(11-24-2013 12:14 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(11-24-2013 11:26 AM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  Very little if any. Those low tier bowl games do not pay much, sometimes not even enough to cover expenses.

Numerator may stay almost the same, but it's the denominator that makes all the difference.

$22M X 9 = $198M total (2012)
$198M / 10 = $19.9M per team (2013, assuming NO drop in total revenue).

So the per team payout figures to decrease by a little over $2M per team, if not more.

hy do you say the denominator changes from 9 to 10?

did you read the OP?????

one of the big changes from this year vs last year is that the revenue gets changed from being split 9 ways to 10 (tcu/wvu only got half shares last year)

That is a funny way of saying 9 shares. IIRC TCU and WV share are increased incrementally and I do not think they both get full shares until 2014

(11-24-2013 03:22 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(11-24-2013 03:04 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(11-24-2013 02:29 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(11-24-2013 12:14 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(11-24-2013 11:26 AM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  Very little if any. Those low tier bowl games do not pay much, sometimes not even enough to cover expenses.

Numerator may stay almost the same, but it's the denominator that makes all the difference.

$22M X 9 = $198M total (2012)
$198M / 10 = $19.9M per team (2013, assuming NO drop in total revenue).

So the per team payout figures to decrease by a little over $2M per team, if not more.

hy do you say the denominator changes from 9 to 10?

did you read the OP?????

one of the big changes from this year vs last year is that the revenue gets changed from being split 9 ways to 10 (tcu/wvu only got half shares last year)

That is a funny way of saying 9 shares. IIRC TCU and WV share are increased incrementally and I do not think they both get full shares until 2014

year 1 = 50%
year 2 = 67%
year 3 = 84%
year 4 = full share

(11-24-2013 03:30 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(11-24-2013 03:22 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(11-24-2013 03:04 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(11-24-2013 02:29 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(11-24-2013 12:14 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Numerator may stay almost the same, but it's the denominator that makes all the difference.

$22M X 9 = $198M total (2012)
$198M / 10 = $19.9M per team (2013, assuming NO drop in total revenue).

So the per team payout figures to decrease by a little over $2M per team, if not more.

hy do you say the denominator changes from 9 to 10?

did you read the OP?????

one of the big changes from this year vs last year is that the revenue gets changed from being split 9 ways to 10 (tcu/wvu only got half shares last year)

That is a funny way of saying 9 shares. IIRC TCU and WV share are increased incrementally and I do not think they both get full shares until 2014

year 1 = 50%
year 2 = 67%
year 3 = 84%
year 4 = full share

That is what I thought. So it is not divided by a total 10 shares this year. You agree?

(11-24-2013 05:38 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(11-24-2013 03:30 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(11-24-2013 03:22 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(11-24-2013 03:04 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(11-24-2013 02:29 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  hy do you say the denominator changes from 9 to 10?

did you read the OP?????

one of the big changes from this year vs last year is that the revenue gets changed from being split 9 ways to 10 (tcu/wvu only got half shares last year)

That is a funny way of saying 9 shares. IIRC TCU and WV share are increased incrementally and I do not think they both get full shares until 2014

year 1 = 50%
year 2 = 67%
year 3 = 84%
year 4 = full share

That is what I thought. So it is not divided by a total 10 shares this year. You agree?

yes but theres a BIG difference between 50%-67% especially when we are talking about 20% of the conference coupled with the 3 fewer bowl games.

Good ....glad you agree on that. However , as I said before, I don't think the loss of these three lower tier bowl games causes the conference to lose much if any revenue. Heck, with the travel expenses and having to reimburse the teams for tickets the bowl required the team to purchase, but were unable to sell.....they might even come out better revenue wise by not going to the bowls.

Often a team loses money going to a bowl game

Lower tier bowls are money losers.

(11-24-2013 06:13 PM)Big Frog II Wrote:  Lower tier bowls are money losers.

which i why TCU is so much better off sitting at home on the couch come bowl season

B12 payout for all 10 schools starting in 2015 is $30/million per B12 school. TCU and WVA each received $11 million in 2014, but those partial shares were way, way above their previous conference.

All B12 bowls earn money and are not financial losers.