(03-22-2015 11:26 PM)CollegeCard Wrote:  

(03-22-2015 11:23 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  

(03-22-2015 11:19 PM)CollegeCard Wrote:  How does the Big 10 payout come out to 1.92 mil per team currently?

The Big12 does because they have ten members. The Big Ten is at 1.6million.

Thank you. I clearly can't read straight, my mistake!

I can never get data to show up in columns on here. It'd be better as a table.

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketba...nt-success

"ACC to net over $28M off tourney"

LET'S KEEP A GOOD THING GOING

WOW!!!!

The ACC just rocks in EVERYTHING We DO!!!!
FLossY Out...

It's nice that the ACC is winning these games, but the financial benefit is really rather small. The $1.92M/team is spread over 6 years, correct? So $200K/year more than the SEC isn't game-changing, and that unit-disparity is even less in comparison to the Big Ten.

(03-23-2015 04:27 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  It's nice that the ACC is winning these games, but the financial benefit is really rather small. The $1.92M/team is spread over 6 years, correct? So $200K/year more than the SEC isn't game-changing, and that unit-disparity is even less in comparison to the Big Ten.

True, but with the lineup of schools in the ACC you can conceivably see this happening in most years, thus allowing a significant increase in payout per school once the full 6 years of these teams are in play.

(03-23-2015 04:45 PM)mlb Wrote:  

(03-23-2015 04:27 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  It's nice that the ACC is winning these games, but the financial benefit is really rather small. The $1.92M/team is spread over 6 years, correct? So $200K/year more than the SEC isn't game-changing, and that unit-disparity is even less in comparison to the Big Ten.

True, but with the lineup of schools in the ACC you can conceivably see this happening in most years, thus allowing a significant increase in payout per school once the full 6 years of these teams are in play.

Add in Cuse next year and PITT getting back to normal and these credits will compound year after year. The gap will get wider. Not huge, but significant.

(03-23-2015 04:48 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(03-23-2015 04:45 PM)mlb Wrote:  

(03-23-2015 04:27 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  It's nice that the ACC is winning these games, but the financial benefit is really rather small. The $1.92M/team is spread over 6 years, correct? So $200K/year more than the SEC isn't game-changing, and that unit-disparity is even less in comparison to the Big Ten.

True, but with the lineup of schools in the ACC you can conceivably see this happening in most years, thus allowing a significant increase in payout per school once the full 6 years of these teams are in play.

Add in Cuse next year and PITT getting back to normal and these credits will compound year after year. The gap will get wider. Not huge, but significant.

Will Syracuse be able to make the tournament with sanctions?

(03-23-2015 07:36 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  

(03-23-2015 04:48 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(03-23-2015 04:45 PM)mlb Wrote:  

(03-23-2015 04:27 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  It's nice that the ACC is winning these games, but the financial benefit is really rather small. The $1.92M/team is spread over 6 years, correct? So $200K/year more than the SEC isn't game-changing, and that unit-disparity is even less in comparison to the Big Ten.

True, but with the lineup of schools in the ACC you can conceivably see this happening in most years, thus allowing a significant increase in payout per school once the full 6 years of these teams are in play.

Add in Cuse next year and PITT getting back to normal and these credits will compound year after year. The gap will get wider. Not huge, but significant.

Will Syracuse be able to make the tournament with sanctions?

We think yes...they have 2 5 star players coming off injury as well as 4 Top 100 recruits.

(03-23-2015 04:27 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  It's nice that the ACC is winning these games, but the financial benefit is really rather small. The $1.92M/team is spread over 6 years, correct? So $200K/year more than the SEC isn't game-changing, and that unit-disparity is even less in comparison to the Big Ten.

It's revenue. If the ACC continues this performance level it will cover player stipends for all athletes.

So is the old Big East still the greatest? IIRC, they'd normally get a lot of teams in and only a couple would make it past the 2nd round.

(03-23-2015 04:45 PM)mlb Wrote:  

(03-23-2015 04:27 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  It's nice that the ACC is winning these games, but the financial benefit is really rather small. The $1.92M/team is spread over 6 years, correct? So $200K/year more than the SEC isn't game-changing, and that unit-disparity is even less in comparison to the Big Ten.

True, but with the lineup of schools in the ACC you can conceivably see this happening in most years, thus allowing a significant increase in payout per school once the full 6 years of these teams are in play.

The ACC probably won't get 5 teams in the Sweet Sixteen that often. Only the second time any conference has ever done it, I thought I read on here? But even if the ACC earned more units than the SEC - to the tune of $200K/school/year difference - that'd only be $1.2M/school/year when combining all 6-years' worth of units. That's nice. It's better than not having that revenue. But that doesn't compete with the Big Ten's $7M+/year BTN and is almost definitely less than what the SECN will be making. Bragging about the little things while the conference is losing the revenue war.

(03-23-2015 09:08 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(03-23-2015 04:45 PM)mlb Wrote:  

(03-23-2015 04:27 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  It's nice that the ACC is winning these games, but the financial benefit is really rather small. The $1.92M/team is spread over 6 years, correct? So $200K/year more than the SEC isn't game-changing, and that unit-disparity is even less in comparison to the Big Ten.

True, but with the lineup of schools in the ACC you can conceivably see this happening in most years, thus allowing a significant increase in payout per school once the full 6 years of these teams are in play.

The ACC probably won't get 5 teams in the Sweet Sixteen that often. Only the second time any conference has ever done it, I thought I read on here? But even if the ACC earned more units than the SEC - to the tune of $200K/school/year difference - that'd only be $1.2M/school/year when combining all 6-years' worth of units. That's nice. It's better than not having that revenue. But that doesn't compete with the Big Ten's $7M+/year BTN and is almost definitely less than what the SECN will be making. Bragging about the little things while the conference is losing the revenue war.

Think about it this way. 6 games + 6 games + 5 games = 17 games already earned.

17 * 1.6 = 27.2 million dollars, with the possibility of adding another 6.4 (4*1.6) million in the next round

Yes, I would trade that marginal NCAAT benefit over the SEC for the SEC's Sugar + Orange Bowl ties instead of out Orange Bowl tie, but the NCAAT money "isn't anything to sneeze at." It's basically an Orange Bowl payout. And, FWIW, I think that's going to be the next area of reform in that I think that participating schools are going to take a bigger cut of the money that they earned (i.e. there will be a reduced NCAA skim off the top). If that reform is made, the ACC will benefit the most.

(03-23-2015 09:08 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(03-23-2015 04:45 PM)mlb Wrote:  

(03-23-2015 04:27 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  It's nice that the ACC is winning these games, but the financial benefit is really rather small. The $1.92M/team is spread over 6 years, correct? So $200K/year more than the SEC isn't game-changing, and that unit-disparity is even less in comparison to the Big Ten.

True, but with the lineup of schools in the ACC you can conceivably see this happening in most years, thus allowing a significant increase in payout per school once the full 6 years of these teams are in play.

The ACC probably won't get 5 teams in the Sweet Sixteen that often. Only the second time any conference has ever done it, I thought I read on here? But even if the ACC earned more units than the SEC - to the tune of $200K/school/year difference - that'd only be $1.2M/school/year when combining all 6-years' worth of units. That's nice. It's better than not having that revenue. But that doesn't compete with the Big Ten's $7M+/year BTN and is almost definitely less than what the SECN will be making. Bragging about the little things while the conference is losing the revenue war.

I think the Sweet 16 will happen pretty often for Duke, UNC, Cuse, UofL, and Virginia (they are young and TB is solid).

Sprinkle in NCST, ND and PITT (they will be back in NCAA next year) and 7 teams in the Tournament from the ACC would get you 5 teams in the Sweet 16 pretty often.

I know it didn't work out for other conferences this year, but the ACC is a different beast.

Syracuse WILL be back next year.

Now if the UNC crap prevents them from playing in the NCAA, that may hurt the ACC a bit but......I believe we are the only conference that can afford to lose a "blue-blood" for a year or two and still not miss a beat regarding the post season.

(03-23-2015 07:46 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  So is the old Big East still the greatest? IIRC, they'd normally get a lot of teams in and only a couple would make it past the 2nd round.

1985 Big East was and still is the standard bearer of the best all time

(03-23-2015 11:01 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(03-23-2015 07:46 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  So is the old Big East still the greatest? IIRC, they'd normally get a lot of teams in and only a couple would make it past the 2nd round.

1985 Big East was and still is the standard bearer of the best all time

Actually, building off that point, the BIG EAST usually did statistically better than average (i.e. +50% survived the first round, +25% survived the 2nd round, etc.)

(03-23-2015 11:04 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(03-23-2015 11:01 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(03-23-2015 07:46 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  So is the old Big East still the greatest? IIRC, they'd normally get a lot of teams in and only a couple would make it past the 2nd round.

1985 Big East was and still is the standard bearer of the best all time

Actually, building off that point, the BIG EAST usually did statistically better than average (i.e. +50% survived the first round, +25% survived the 2nd round, etc.)

I was thinking from recent years... like the year you guys got 11 bids and then dropped like flies. Admittedly I don't know a lot about the Big East from the early - mid 80's other than what I can look up on the net.

(03-23-2015 11:29 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(03-23-2015 11:04 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(03-23-2015 11:01 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(03-23-2015 07:46 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  So is the old Big East still the greatest? IIRC, they'd normally get a lot of teams in and only a couple would make it past the 2nd round.

1985 Big East was and still is the standard bearer of the best all time

Actually, building off that point, the BIG EAST usually did statistically better than average (i.e. +50% survived the first round, +25% survived the 2nd round, etc.)

I was thinking from recent years... like the year you guys got 11 bids and then dropped like flies. Admittedly I don't know a lot about the Big East from the early - mid 80's other than what I can look up on the net.

That 11 bid season (2009) saw the BE set the record with 5 Sweet-16 teams, and another record with half of the Elite-8.

The ACC with only 6 bids this year obviously did much better %-wise, tying that Sweet-16 record-- We'll see about the E-8. NC St & UofL obviously play, so only one advances, but 4 may be possible in the E-8.

(03-23-2015 09:56 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(03-23-2015 09:08 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  [quote='mlb' pid='11914813' dateline='1427147146']
[quote='Marge Schott' pid='11914737' dateline='1427146056']
It's nice that the ACC is winning these games, but the financial benefit is really rather small. The $1.92M/team is spread over 6 years, correct? So $200K/year more than the SEC isn't game-changing, and that unit-disparity is even less in comparison to the Big Ten.

Now if the UNC crap prevents them from playing in the NCAA, that may hurt the ACC a bit but......I believe we are the only conference that can afford to lose a "blue-blood" for a year or two and still not miss a beat regarding the post season.

Or even three or four.

(03-23-2015 09:56 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(03-23-2015 09:08 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(03-23-2015 04:45 PM)mlb Wrote:  

(03-23-2015 04:27 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  It's nice that the ACC is winning these games, but the financial benefit is really rather small. The $1.92M/team is spread over 6 years, correct? So $200K/year more than the SEC isn't game-changing, and that unit-disparity is even less in comparison to the Big Ten.

True, but with the lineup of schools in the ACC you can conceivably see this happening in most years, thus allowing a significant increase in payout per school once the full 6 years of these teams are in play.

The ACC probably won't get 5 teams in the Sweet Sixteen that often. Only the second time any conference has ever done it, I thought I read on here? But even if the ACC earned more units than the SEC - to the tune of $200K/school/year difference - that'd only be $1.2M/school/year when combining all 6-years' worth of units. That's nice. It's better than not having that revenue. But that doesn't compete with the Big Ten's $7M+/year BTN and is almost definitely less than what the SECN will be making. Bragging about the little things while the conference is losing the revenue war.

I think the Sweet 16 will happen pretty often for Duke, UNC, Cuse, UofL, and Virginia (they are young and TB is solid).

Sprinkle in NCST, ND and PITT (they will be back in NCAA next year) and 7 teams in the Tournament from the ACC would get you 5 teams in the Sweet 16 pretty often.

I know it didn't work out for other conferences this year, but the ACC is a different beast.

Syracuse WILL be back next year.

Now if the UNC crap prevents them from playing in the NCAA, that may hurt the ACC a bit but......I believe we are the only conference that can afford to lose a "blue-blood" for a year or two and still not miss a beat regarding the post season.

Not even close. The ACC will seldom get 5 teams to the Sweet Sixteen with only 7 NCAAT bids, let alone do it "pretty often".

Cuse, UNC, Duke and UL only make the Sweet Sixteen something like 60% of the time over the last decade. So in any given year that's just under 2.5 Sweet Sixteen participants. If NC State and UVA make it 50% of the time (2/2 for UVA last two years, and 2/4 for NC State last 4 years), that's up to almost 3.5 bids. Pitt has only made the Sweet Sixteen 25% of the time with Dixon and ND has only made 2 Sweet Sixteens in the last 25ish years. So let's just give them .5 of a bid. Now we're up to 4 bids from 8 NCAAT teams. You would likely need to get 10 or 11 teams in the NCAAT in order to get 5 teams to the Sweet Sixteen "pretty often" (which to me means significantly more than 50% of the time).

But all of that was ENTIRELY beside the premise of my prior comment. Even in a year when the ACC makes up close to 1/3 of the Sweet Sixteen field, the revenue from the units earned over the 6-year cycle will pale in comparison to the BTN and SECN revenues.

Again, bragging about a small battle while you're losing the revenue war.

Marge you gotta start somewhere. Sadly Basketball subsidizes about 250 extra leech programs with the tournament.