http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2014/...d_208.html
"SEC schools received an average payout of $20.8 million from the conference in 2012-13, the first academic year with Texas A&M and Missouri, according to the SEC's new federal tax return.

The return, provided to AL.com upon request, shows the average payout per school was slightly up from $20.4 million in 2011-12. The 2-percent increase in the average payout was the smallest jump during the SEC's streak of seven straight football national titles.

New members in 2012-13 meant more mouths to feed from the pool of money. Texas A&M and Missouri were added in large part to create the ESPN-owned SEC Network, which launches this August and is expected to eventually generate significantly more money for the SEC.


The smallest payouts went to new members Texas A&M ($19.5 million) and Missouri ($19.6 million), and the largest to Arkansas ($21.3 million) and Vanderbilt ($21.3 million). Texas A&M and Missouri received $1.4 to $1.5 million less than the next-closest SEC schools. The difference in distribution was because of money accumulated prior to Texas A&M and Missouri becoming SEC members on July 1, 2012, SEC Associate Commissioner Herb Vincent said."

....
SEC Money During BCS Title Streak


Year

Total Revenue

Avg. Payout to Schools

2012-13 $314.5 million $20.8 million
2011-12 $271.8 million $20.4 million
2010-11 $261.1 million $19.5 million
2009-10 $244.4 million $18.3 million
2008-09 $148.0 million $13.1 million
2007-08 $161.6 million $11.3 million
2006-07 $149.2 million $11.0 million

The payout to the SEC has almost doubled since 2007. Impressive numbers.

(01-19-2014 12:47 PM)bullet Wrote:  http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2014/...d_208.html
"SEC schools received an average payout of $20.8 million from the conference in 2012-13, the first academic year with Texas A&M and Missouri, according to the SEC's new federal tax return.

The return, provided to AL.com upon request, shows the average payout per school was slightly up from $20.4 million in 2011-12. The 2-percent increase in the average payout was the smallest jump during the SEC's streak of seven straight football national titles.

New members in 2012-13 meant more mouths to feed from the pool of money. Texas A&M and Missouri were added in large part to create the ESPN-owned SEC Network, which launches this August and is expected to eventually generate significantly more money for the SEC.


The smallest payouts went to new members Texas A&M ($19.5 million) and Missouri ($19.6 million), and the largest to Arkansas ($21.3 million) and Vanderbilt ($21.3 million). Texas A&M and Missouri received $1.4 to $1.5 million less than the next-closest SEC schools. The difference in distribution was because of money accumulated prior to Texas A&M and Missouri becoming SEC members on July 1, 2012, SEC Associate Commissioner Herb Vincent said."

....
SEC Money During BCS Title Streak


Year

Total Revenue

Avg. Payout to Schools

2012-13 $314.5 million $20.8 million - ACC 18.2 million 88%*
2011-12 $271.8 million $20.4 million - ACC 16.9 million 83%
2010-11 $261.1 million $19.5 million - ACC 12.4 million 64%
2009-10 $244.4 million $18.3 million - ACC 11.7 million 64%
2008-09 $148.0 million $13.1 million - ACC 13.6 million 104%
2007-08 $161.6 million $11.3 million - ACC 11.8 million 104%
2006-07 $149.2 million $11.0 million - ACC 11.4 million 103%

What's more amazing is that over first 3 years of that run, the ACC made more money per school, until a half decade of bad football finally caught up with them in 2010.

I think part of what you can see is general collusion to keep the ACC pegged at about 87.5% of the value of the SEC, or put the other way, the SEC valued at 15% more than the ACC. That mid 80's percentage as an average keeps popping up.

The B10 is probably 5% more than the SEC. It will be interesting to see if these percentages hold over the next decade.

*http://www.dailypress.com/sports/teel-blog/dp-teel-time-acc-sec-finances,0,1583597.story?page=2

(01-19-2014 04:46 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(01-19-2014 12:47 PM)bullet Wrote:  http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2014/...d_208.html
"SEC schools received an average payout of $20.8 million from the conference in 2012-13, the first academic year with Texas A&M and Missouri, according to the SEC's new federal tax return.

The return, provided to AL.com upon request, shows the average payout per school was slightly up from $20.4 million in 2011-12. The 2-percent increase in the average payout was the smallest jump during the SEC's streak of seven straight football national titles.

New members in 2012-13 meant more mouths to feed from the pool of money. Texas A&M and Missouri were added in large part to create the ESPN-owned SEC Network, which launches this August and is expected to eventually generate significantly more money for the SEC.


The smallest payouts went to new members Texas A&M ($19.5 million) and Missouri ($19.6 million), and the largest to Arkansas ($21.3 million) and Vanderbilt ($21.3 million). Texas A&M and Missouri received $1.4 to $1.5 million less than the next-closest SEC schools. The difference in distribution was because of money accumulated prior to Texas A&M and Missouri becoming SEC members on July 1, 2012, SEC Associate Commissioner Herb Vincent said."

....
SEC Money During BCS Title Streak


Year

Total Revenue

Avg. Payout to Schools

2012-13 $314.5 million $20.8 million - ACC 18.2 million 88%*
2011-12 $271.8 million $20.4 million - ACC 16.9 million 83%
2010-11 $261.1 million $19.5 million - ACC 12.4 million 64%
2009-10 $244.4 million $18.3 million - ACC 11.7 million 64%
2008-09 $148.0 million $13.1 million - ACC 13.6 million 104%
2007-08 $161.6 million $11.3 million - ACC 11.8 million 104%
2006-07 $149.2 million $11.0 million - ACC 11.4 million 103%

What's more amazing is that over first 3 years of that run, the ACC made more money per school, until a half decade of bad football finally caught up with them in 2010.

I think part of what you can see is general collusion to keep the ACC pegged at about 87.5% of the value of the SEC, or put the other way, the SEC valued at 15% more than the ACC. That mid 80's percentage as an average keeps popping up.

The B10 is probably 5% more than the SEC. It will be interesting to see if these percentages hold over the next decade.

*http://www.dailypress.com/sports/teel-blog/dp-teel-time-acc-sec-finances,0,1583597.story?page=2

In 2014 & 15 the SEC network will only pay the conference members between 1 to 2 million as all start up costs are front loaded to the first two years. In 2016 the jump should be to appx. 13.3 million. So I doubt these numbers are going to hold. The SEC also helped the new members by accepting only about half of the bump for the first two years of A&M's and Missouri's participation. Expect that number to go up a bit more in 2014. Enjoy being close while you can Bullet the afterburners are getting lit in 2016.

JR where do you derive the 13.3 million number?

According to the SEC tax form, the SEC only received an average of $13.6 million this year from TV (14 schools and the conference cut) - so are you saying the SEC's TV value will be $27 million in 2016?

From most of what I've read, the SEC has foregone a big increase on the regular TV contract for the potential of 50% of the network.

The ACC's TV deal is roughly at $20 million with ND and Louisville included. The ACC has a side deal with ESPN to add $2 million in 2015 if no network is added, but FSU's Barron is under the opinion the network would net up to $5 million. There is a contractual look-in in 2017.

It seems to me that a TOTAL tv contract differential of $22 million to $27 million sounds reasonable. Given the other sources of revenue - NCAA revenues (where the ACC has an advantage - about $4.5 million to $3.8 million) and the playoff and bowls (where the SEC has and advantage about $7 million to $5.85 million ) - that put's the differential in 2016 of about $40 million to $32 given no network for the ACC. That puts the ACC at 80% of the SEC, with a look-in the next year.

That's why I mention the mid-80's or 15% value formula. It then takes only a small bump to bring the ACC up from 80% to 85% at the look-in and if the network works like Barron thinks, then the 87.5% figure at 2017 appears.

I'm not sure how much money actually matters though if you are competing against a school that can fill a 100K seat stadium. The differences in TV money pale next to the difference between a 100K stadium and a 60K stadium.

(01-19-2014 05:37 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  JR where do you derive the 13.3 million number?

According to the SEC tax form, the SEC only received an average of $13.6 million this year from TV (14 schools and the conference cut) - so are you saying the SEC's TV value will be $27 million in 2016?

From most of what I've read, the SEC has foregone a big increase on the regular TV contract for the potential of 50% of the network.

Start with the conservative prospective earnings of $400,000 million. Again go with a conservative etimate of 50% to go to the SEC divided by 15 shares comes out to 13.33 million with the conference share going to annual maintenance expenses for the network. The start up costs will be covered prior to the 2016 season before the carriage rates start to peak through withholding the bulk of the first two years earnings from the conference teams, again a conservative approach. I've been told that between 1 to 2 million for the network is all that will be paid out in 2014 & 15's seasons. So the SEC's annual earnings per team will be relatively flat for two more years. Then in 2016 the full shares of the network kick in. We know that we will take jabs by the message posters on totals for a couple of more years, but in the end there will be a significant difference. It's just like the tier three income for the SEC has never been reported by the conference office because it was kept by the universities prior to last year. Most of the SEC earnings comparisons listed for the years prior to 2013 don't reflect an additional 3 to 15 million in tier three income earned from our lowest earning team to our highest. You don't hear SEC folks bellyaching about earnings, or potential earnings, and the only unfortunate aspect of the network is that our total earnings will be more completely revealed in the network era. It's been nice not having our opposition clued in to the real total. All of this talk is always about TV contract money but the separation is on merchandise sales, attendance, and athletic fund giving. The conferences always comparing TV revenue have always avoided talking about how 40% of the top 10 profitable programs in the country are within the SEC and that the percentage stays the same through the top 20 placing 8 of our teams in that mix. When the network revenue kicks in there will be separation from the both the ACC and Big 12 in television revenue as well. I imagine we will still be within 3 - 5% of the Big 10.

(01-19-2014 05:57 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-19-2014 05:37 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  JR where do you derive the 13.3 million number?

According to the SEC tax form, the SEC only received an average of $13.6 million this year from TV (14 schools and the conference cut) - so are you saying the SEC's TV value will be $27 million in 2016?

From most of what I've read, the SEC has foregone a big increase on the regular TV contract for the potential of 50% of the network.

Conservative prospective earnings of $400,000 million. Again conservative etimate of 50% to go to the SEC divided by 15 shares comes out to 13.33 million with the conference share going to annual maintenance expenses for the network. The start up costs will be covered prior to the 2016 season before the carriage rates start to peak, again a conservative estimate. So the SEC's annual earnings per team will be relatively flat for two more years. Then in 2016 the full shares of the network kick in.

That makes sense.

The SEC is taking a higher risk/higher reward contractual stance.

ESPN will keep you ahead of the ACC, but ESPN will not allow the ACC to fall too far behind.

(01-19-2014 05:58 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(01-19-2014 05:57 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-19-2014 05:37 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  JR where do you derive the 13.3 million number?

According to the SEC tax form, the SEC only received an average of $13.6 million this year from TV (14 schools and the conference cut) - so are you saying the SEC's TV value will be $27 million in 2016?

From most of what I've read, the SEC has foregone a big increase on the regular TV contract for the potential of 50% of the network.

Conservative prospective earnings of $400,000 million. Again conservative etimate of 50% to go to the SEC divided by 15 shares comes out to 13.33 million with the conference share going to annual maintenance expenses for the network. The start up costs will be covered prior to the 2016 season before the carriage rates start to peak, again a conservative estimate. So the SEC's annual earnings per team will be relatively flat for two more years. Then in 2016 the full shares of the network kick in.

That makes sense.

The SEC is taking a higher risk/higher reward contractual stance.

ESPN will keep you ahead of the ACC, but ESPN will not allow the ACC to fall too far behind.

LP, when realignment reaches a conclusion I expect to see the earning potentials for the surviving conferences roughly equalized. While realignment is ongoing I expect to see the SEC's and Big 10's payout stay higher intentionally. Those are the two geographically confined footprints with the most eyeballs on the product. The networks don't want to mess with that. When they have played the imbalances to arrange the others as they think best (by paying for the additions they want) then I expect them to equalize the payouts to stabilize the new structure they found and to enhance competitiveness. The trick ahead will be in hanging tight until it's over. I also believe that in the period where the payouts are brought to parity that you will see any other additions of those currently outside of the P5 take place. When conferences see that nothing can be weakened or lost by taking them the networks can work in their inclusion by simply keeping the payouts the same and raising playoff revenue accordingly.

(01-19-2014 04:46 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(01-19-2014 12:47 PM)bullet Wrote:  http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2014/...d_208.html
"SEC schools received an average payout of $20.8 million from the conference in 2012-13, the first academic year with Texas A&M and Missouri, according to the SEC's new federal tax return.

The return, provided to AL.com upon request, shows the average payout per school was slightly up from $20.4 million in 2011-12. The 2-percent increase in the average payout was the smallest jump during the SEC's streak of seven straight football national titles.

New members in 2012-13 meant more mouths to feed from the pool of money. Texas A&M and Missouri were added in large part to create the ESPN-owned SEC Network, which launches this August and is expected to eventually generate significantly more money for the SEC.


The smallest payouts went to new members Texas A&M ($19.5 million) and Missouri ($19.6 million), and the largest to Arkansas ($21.3 million) and Vanderbilt ($21.3 million). Texas A&M and Missouri received $1.4 to $1.5 million less than the next-closest SEC schools. The difference in distribution was because of money accumulated prior to Texas A&M and Missouri becoming SEC members on July 1, 2012, SEC Associate Commissioner Herb Vincent said."

....
SEC Money During BCS Title Streak


Year

Total Revenue

Avg. Payout to Schools

2012-13 $314.5 million $20.8 million - ACC 18.2 million 88%*
2011-12 $271.8 million $20.4 million - ACC 16.9 million 83%
2010-11 $261.1 million $19.5 million - ACC 12.4 million 64%
2009-10 $244.4 million $18.3 million - ACC 11.7 million 64%
2008-09 $148.0 million $13.1 million - ACC 13.6 million 104%
2007-08 $161.6 million $11.3 million - ACC 11.8 million 104%
2006-07 $149.2 million $11.0 million - ACC 11.4 million 103%

What's more amazing is that over first 3 years of that run, the ACC made more money per school, until a half decade of bad football finally caught up with them in 2010.

I think part of what you can see is general collusion to keep the ACC pegged at about 87.5% of the value of the SEC, or put the other way, the SEC valued at 15% more than the ACC. That mid 80's percentage as an average keeps popping up.

The B10 is probably 5% more than the SEC. It will be interesting to see if these percentages hold over the next decade.

*http://www.dailypress.com/sports/teel-blog/dp-teel-time-acc-sec-finances,0,1583597.story?page=2

What those numbers reflect is the SEC & ACC being 2 years apart on their TV contract. SEC signed their new deal effective 2009 as they had an older, lower paying contract. ACC's new contract started 2011. Pac 12 and Big 12 also went up dramatically when their new contracts kicked in-2011 for Pac 12 and 2012 (but with bonuses in 2010 and 2011) for the Big 12.

JR - I don't see any reason for the ACC to make the same as the B10 or SEC for a long, long time, it makes no sense due to the disparity regarding the number of overall alums. The ACC just has too many small schools to have an expectation of full parity, however averaging 85% or more of the SEC/B10 is perfectly okay and reasonable to me unless the ACC were to add Texas. WF, BC, Miami, and Duke are tiny. Even GT, UVa, and Clemson are very small compared to their counterparts.

(01-19-2014 07:57 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  JR - I don't see any reason for the ACC to make the same as the B10 or SEC for a long, long time, it makes no sense due to the disparity regarding the number of overall alums. The ACC just has too many small schools to have an expectation of full parity, however averaging 85% or more of the SEC/B10 is perfectly okay and reasonable to me unless the ACC were to add Texas. WF, BC, Miami, and Duke are tiny. Even GT, UVa, and Clemson are very small compared to their counterparts.

Like I said, it depends on how realignment plays out, if it plays out, or when it plays out. It also depends on whether we remain in the NCAA or there is a breakaway. But, what I am suggesting is that when it's over being within + or - 5% of everyone else will be doable. That's close enough because it discourages envy and future moves.

(01-19-2014 08:08 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-19-2014 07:57 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  JR - I don't see any reason for the ACC to make the same as the B10 or SEC for a long, long time, it makes no sense due to the disparity regarding the number of overall alums. The ACC just has too many small schools to have an expectation of full parity, however averaging 85% or more of the SEC/B10 is perfectly okay and reasonable to me unless the ACC were to add Texas. WF, BC, Miami, and Duke are tiny. Even GT, UVa, and Clemson are very small compared to their counterparts.

Like I said, it depends on how realignment plays out, if it plays out, or when it plays out. It also depends on whether we remain in the NCAA or there is a breakaway. But, what I am suggesting is that when it's over being within + or - 5% of everyone else will be doable. That's close enough because it discourages envy and future moves.

I understand what you are saying. Right now the average ACC school is half the size of a B10 school. ACC - 20,800, B10 39,500. The ACC's two smallest are Wake Forest and ND at 7K and 11K. The B10's smallest are NW and Nebraska at 15K and 25K. The SEC is in the middle at 28,500 and Vandy and Ole Miss as the runts at 12K and 20K.

Not, not everyone graduates, but if we just take todays number and use the calculate the rough number of extra living alums using the differential and 20 years to make the differential the B10 has almost 7 million more living alums than does the ACC. Even the SEC has about 2.5 million more living alums.

To my thinking, those alums almost automatically translate into households, not Wal-Mart type fans that are ginned up with a few good years. I don't see that not being taken into account even after full realignment is over. I guess what I'm saying is that I just don't see any scenario where the ACC is not 10% behind the SEC/B10 unless the ACC adds a school like Texas.

But I guess we are splitting hairs - you see rough parity at 5% and I see it at 10%-15%.

(01-19-2014 08:19 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(01-19-2014 08:08 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-19-2014 07:57 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  JR - I don't see any reason for the ACC to make the same as the B10 or SEC for a long, long time, it makes no sense due to the disparity regarding the number of overall alums. The ACC just has too many small schools to have an expectation of full parity, however averaging 85% or more of the SEC/B10 is perfectly okay and reasonable to me unless the ACC were to add Texas. WF, BC, Miami, and Duke are tiny. Even GT, UVa, and Clemson are very small compared to their counterparts.

Like I said, it depends on how realignment plays out, if it plays out, or when it plays out. It also depends on whether we remain in the NCAA or there is a breakaway. But, what I am suggesting is that when it's over being within + or - 5% of everyone else will be doable. That's close enough because it discourages envy and future moves.

I understand what you are saying. Right now the average ACC school is half the size of a B10 school. ACC - 20,800, B10 39,500. The ACC's two smallest are Wake Forest and ND at 7K and 11K. The B10's smallest are NW and Nebraska at 15K and 25K. The SEC is in the middle at 28,500 and Vandy and Ole Miss as the runts at 12K and 20K.

Not, not everyone graduates, but if we just take todays number and use the calculate the rough number of extra living alums using the differential and 20 years to make the differential the B10 has almost 7 million more living alums than does the ACC. Even the SEC has about 2.5 million more living alums.

To my thinking, those alums almost automatically translate into households, not Wal-Mart type fans that are ginned up with a few good years. I don't see that not being taken into account even after full realignment is over. I guess what I'm saying is that I just don't see any scenario where the ACC is not 10% behind the SEC/B10 unless the ACC adds a school like Texas.

But I guess we are splitting hairs - you see rough parity at 5% and I see it at 10%-15%.

What we are seeing are different paradigms in value setting. You are still looking at households, I'm looking at a finite set of schools within an upper division which while maintaining conference affiliations for the sake of grouping will essentially function as a single unit when it comes to valuation, especially if you close the play to just upper tier teams. In the case of a breakaway all contracts will be renewed essentially at the same time, that alone will be enough to close the gaps. And if there are other teams the networks desire to be included then compensation packages will have to be worked out that do not devalue the payout to existing member teams. So I think that contracts within a smaller range will make those kinds of matters easier to handle on a region by region basis. If we stay within the NCAA format slightly wider gaps may continue to exist. If an upper division is formed within the NCAA then perhaps the gap is narrowed to levels approaching what I believe would happen in a breakaway. There are many industries ancillary to college sports that would love the perception of equal footing to be put forth.

(01-19-2014 08:30 PM)JRsec Wrote:  And if there are other teams the networks desire to be included then compensation packages will have to be worked out that do not devalue the payout to existing member teams.

Your logic suggests a single network rather than competing networks at play. As long as competition exists and college football views are used to promote other programing, intrinsic product value and money offered to various power leagues may differ by more than 5%.

I could see bids from 2 networks on the same conference differing by more than 5% for that reason.

(01-19-2014 08:47 PM)SeaBlue Wrote:  

(01-19-2014 08:30 PM)JRsec Wrote:  And if there are other teams the networks desire to be included then compensation packages will have to be worked out that do not devalue the payout to existing member teams.

Your logic suggests a single network rather than competing networks at play. As long as competition exists and college football views are used to promote other programing, intrinsic product value and money offered to various power leagues may differ by more than 5%.

I could see bids from 2 networks on the same conference differing by more than 5% for that reason.

A closed upper tier could operate similarly to the NFL in that yes there would be competing networks, but if the product and access to it were sold as a whole in terms of value with portions meted out to the networks then you could equalize television revenues. I think that would require a breakaway however. It is the only way that all contracts would have to be renegotiated at once. Remaining as separate units within the NCAA would not allow for such an opportunity. And I know some will say that the Big 10 and SEC would have no incentive to give up their advantages. However 1 whole unit without rival has more leverage than 4 independent units pitted against one another. In such a case conference names would be maintained only for regional identification but the schools would essentially operate as a single unit.

(01-19-2014 09:02 PM)JRsec Wrote:  And I know some will say that the Big 10 and SEC would have no incentive to give up their advantages. However 1 whole unit without rival has more leverage than 4 independent units pitted against one another.

Hmm... I could see "1 whole unit without rival" giving us national games every day/night of the week. That would be very bad for my family life.