(04-10-2018 05:25 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-10-2018 05:00 PM)bullet Wrote:  Table 4.9 was very interesting. Among the autonomy schools hockey easily has the 3rd highest average revenue. Baseball is barely ahead of lacrosse for #4. After women's basketball with 709k, it was a big drop to women's hockey at 305k for #7. Most of the rest were bunched up between 100k and 289k (water polo was #8-but there were only 4 schools).

Yes but ... how many schools have hockey?

It's right there in Table 4.9.

Only 9 P5 schools have varsity men's ice hockey teams. And in spite of the reported revenue for those 9, the expenses are much higher. Men's ice hockey costs each of those 9 schools an average of more than $3.6 million/year, and each of those 9 is losing an average of more than $900,000 per year on men's ice hockey.

(04-10-2018 12:57 PM)McKinney Wrote:  

(04-10-2018 11:26 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Found this NCAA document promulgated last September (2017) interesting, especially for those who like to invoke NCAA administrative categories as the basis for football playoff systems. It states:

"The 2016 reporting consists of eight separate segments – one for each of the three
Division I subdivisions and one for all Division I men’s and women’s basketball.
Important additions with this edition are separate groupings for the Autonomy
schools and the Non-Autonomy schools."

Look at Sections 4 and 5 of the report, which address revenues/expenses for "FBS Autonomy" and "FBS Non-Autonomy" schools. Very telling, IMO:

http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/...180123.pdf

The full quote is:

Quote:This 2017 edition provides summary information concerning revenues and expenses of NCAA Division I and its three subdivisions for the 2004 through 2016 fiscal year (i.e., institutions' fiscal years that ended within those respective calendar years). In addition, since this edition is the first to report data for the two FBS segments, comparisons are not possible for prior years for those groupings.

I can see you could interpret that two ways. Either they are referring to Autonomy, Non-Autonomy, and FCS.... or they're referring to FBS, FCS, and Non-Football.

It is the former rather than the latter.

(04-10-2018 05:50 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(04-10-2018 05:25 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-10-2018 05:00 PM)bullet Wrote:  Table 4.9 was very interesting. Among the autonomy schools hockey easily has the 3rd highest average revenue. Baseball is barely ahead of lacrosse for #4. After women's basketball with 709k, it was a big drop to women's hockey at 305k for #7. Most of the rest were bunched up between 100k and 289k (water polo was #8-but there were only 4 schools).

Yes but ... how many schools have hockey?

It's right there in Table 4.9.

Only 9 P5 schools have varsity men's ice hockey teams. And in spite of the reported revenue for those 9, the expenses are much higher. Men's ice hockey costs each of those 9 schools an average of more than $3.6 million/year, and each of those 9 is losing an average of more than $900,000 per year on men's ice hockey.

Speaking as someone who has never been a hockey fan, except for rooting for the USA once every four years at the Olympics, it seems to me that hockey may have the most fanatical core fans.

E.g., I have two cousins, late 40s, who have lived their entire lives in Philadelphia. Their dad was a typical rabid sports fan and raised them to follow all four major sports. But they differ on three of them - one is a fan of all the Philly teams, the other follows the Pirates, the Steelers, and the Lakers.

But like his brother, he is also a Flyers fan. And if football is 1A with these guys, hockey is a close 1B. They are fanatical about the Flyers, and for the one who also follows the 76ers, if it's a choice between them or the 76ers on the same night, it's no choice at all, Flyers all the way, even though he is a huge hoops fan and spent all last week partying over Villanova winning the national title, a school he never attended. They spend tons of money on Flyers game tickets, and have all kinds of gear. And these are working-class guys who don't make big bucks.

But of the bucks they have, they spend a ton of them on the Flyers.

(04-10-2018 01:37 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-10-2018 12:29 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Men's tennis
P5 median annual expenses: $827,000
G5: $377,000
FCS: $257,000
NF: $251,000

Women's volleyball
P5 median: $1,721,000
G5: $842,000
FCS: $589,000
NF: $724,000

Good point, and what they show is that the G5 are actually much closer to the FCS/NF than to the P5 on these dimensions.

Are you really a USF fan? Seriously, you are so pro Cartel 5 why even bother?...and you seem so anti-non cartel school...my school will never be in the cartel unless they upgrade the entire conference--which they won't--but I'll keep following them as I dislike pro sports, and one has to root for ones own school.

(04-10-2018 12:29 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Median revenues/expenses for each sport are in Tables 4.9 (P5), 5.9 (G5), 6.9 (FCS), and 7.9 (D-I no-football).

No surprise that, even for the median P5 programs, expenses are way ahead of revenue for every sport except football and men's basketball. The median schools in every D-I category other than P5 are losing money on every sport including football and men's basketball.

Also noteworthy is how much more P5 schools spend on all non-revenue sports (i.e., all sports other than football or men's hoops) compared to other D-I schools. A couple of random examples:

Men's tennis
P5 median annual expenses: $827,000
G5: $377,000
FCS: $257,000
NF: $251,000

Women's volleyball
P5 median: $1,721,000
G5: $842,000
FCS: $589,000
NF: $724,000

Why? Why would a school spend $800k on tennis and $1.7M on volleyball? That just doesn't make any ******* sense. No TV, no attendance, no prestige, nothing, nada, zip. That money should be going to lower the tuition of students.

(04-10-2018 06:37 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(04-10-2018 01:37 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-10-2018 12:29 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Men's tennis
P5 median annual expenses: $827,000
G5: $377,000
FCS: $257,000
NF: $251,000

Women's volleyball
P5 median: $1,721,000
G5: $842,000
FCS: $589,000
NF: $724,000

Good point, and what they show is that the G5 are actually much closer to the FCS/NF than to the P5 on these dimensions.

Are you really a USF fan? Seriously, you are so pro Cartel 5 why even bother?...and you seem so anti-non cartel school...my school will never be in the cartel unless they upgrade the entire conference--which they won't--but I'll keep following them as I dislike pro sports, and one has to root for ones own school.

Exactly why a certain individual is considered persona non grata on a certain forum due to the persistent trolling.

(04-10-2018 06:37 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(04-10-2018 01:37 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-10-2018 12:29 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Men's tennis
P5 median annual expenses: $827,000
G5: $377,000
FCS: $257,000
NF: $251,000

Women's volleyball
P5 median: $1,721,000
G5: $842,000
FCS: $589,000
NF: $724,000

Good point, and what they show is that the G5 are actually much closer to the FCS/NF than to the P5 on these dimensions.

Are you really a USF fan? Seriously, you are so pro Cartel 5 why even bother?...and you seem so anti-non cartel school...my school will never be in the cartel unless they upgrade the entire conference--which they won't--but I'll keep following them as I dislike pro sports, and one has to root for ones own school.

How does anything I said here reflect negatively on me as a USF fan? The data posted are categorical, and the numbers clearly show that the G5 is much closer to FCS than to the P5.

That's what the numbers say, not me.

FWIW, my goal is to see USF get an invite to a power conference, and these kinds of numbers are just one of a hundred reasons why.

(04-10-2018 07:28 PM)otown Wrote:  

(04-10-2018 06:37 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(04-10-2018 01:37 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-10-2018 12:29 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Men's tennis
P5 median annual expenses: $827,000
G5: $377,000
FCS: $257,000
NF: $251,000

Women's volleyball
P5 median: $1,721,000
G5: $842,000
FCS: $589,000
NF: $724,000

Good point, and what they show is that the G5 are actually much closer to the FCS/NF than to the P5 on these dimensions.

Are you really a USF fan? Seriously, you are so pro Cartel 5 why even bother?...and you seem so anti-non cartel school...my school will never be in the cartel unless they upgrade the entire conference--which they won't--but I'll keep following them as I dislike pro sports, and one has to root for ones own school.

Exactly why a certain individual is considered persona non grata on a certain forum due to the persistent trolling.

Yes, if "trolling" is defined as speaking the truth, rather than drinking the kool-aid that "everything is wonderful is this most wonderful possible world" of the AAC?

(04-10-2018 07:59 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-10-2018 07:28 PM)otown Wrote:  

(04-10-2018 06:37 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(04-10-2018 01:37 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-10-2018 12:29 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Men's tennis
P5 median annual expenses: $827,000
G5: $377,000
FCS: $257,000
NF: $251,000

Women's volleyball
P5 median: $1,721,000
G5: $842,000
FCS: $589,000
NF: $724,000

Good point, and what they show is that the G5 are actually much closer to the FCS/NF than to the P5 on these dimensions.

Are you really a USF fan? Seriously, you are so pro Cartel 5 why even bother?...and you seem so anti-non cartel school...my school will never be in the cartel unless they upgrade the entire conference--which they won't--but I'll keep following them as I dislike pro sports, and one has to root for ones own school.

Exactly why a certain individual is considered persona non grata on a certain forum due to the persistent trolling.

Yes, if "trolling" is defined as speaking the truth, rather than drinking the kool-aid that "everything is wonderful is this most wonderful possible world" of the AAC?

Billybobby and OTown stick to the thread topic. Quo don't retort, report.

What I never understood is why doesn't the MAC or AAC demand autonomy? It doesn't have anything to do with money, so the P5 will not care.

(04-10-2018 08:24 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  What I never understood is why doesn't the MAC or AAC demand autonomy? It doesn't have anything to do with money, so the P5 will not care.

They still wouldn't be in ESPN's "Power Five" so what would it matter?

(04-10-2018 08:24 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  What I never understood is why doesn't the MAC or AAC demand autonomy? It doesn't have anything to do with money, so the P5 will not care.

Autonomy to do what exactly? What would be the point?

(04-10-2018 08:39 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(04-10-2018 08:24 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  What I never understood is why doesn't the MAC or AAC demand autonomy? It doesn't have anything to do with money, so the P5 will not care.

Autonomy to do what exactly? What would be the point?

Whatever they want - it's more about freedom as a principle and playing under the same set of rules as the banner institutions that represent FBS.

(04-10-2018 08:24 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  What I never understood is why doesn't the MAC or AAC demand autonomy? It doesn't have anything to do with money, so the P5 will not care.

Autonomy gave the G5 what they wanted. Most G5's are aspirational they want to do the same things the P5 want to do, they just can't always afford it. FCS and non-football have been the traditional groups trying to block.

If the Autonomy group passes a rule permitting something, any Division I conference can adopt a league rule adopting the autonomy rule.

When the stipend was first passed, the Sun Belt was the first conference to approve it for its members, ahead of any P5.

Even though the Sun Belt jumped on the authorization early, only about half the members fully implemented the first year.

What is it that the autonomous schools are free from? Are there rules that the non-autonomous schools have to follow the the autonomous schools don't? Is there any benefit for the non-autonomous schools to become autonomous? Can they just declare themselves autonomous or does it require some kind of vote or something?

Here is the real numbers to look for when going FBS or FCS:

FBS-NA Revenues
Total Ticket Sales 2,121,000
NCAA/Conference Distro 2,685,000
Guarantees and Options 1,333,000
Cash Contributions 3,320,000
Royalties and Advertising 1,184,000
FB Coaching Staff Salaries (2,353,000)

FCS Revenues
Total Ticket Sales 468,000
NCAA/Conference Distro 842,000
Guarantees and Options 643,000
Cash Contributions 1,055,000
Royalties and Advertising 318,000
FB Coaching Staff Salaries (921,000)

The G5 spends 1.4 million more on FB staff to generate 7.3 million more in revenue.

(04-10-2018 08:50 PM)McKinney Wrote:  What is it that the autonomous schools are free from? Are there rules that the non-autonomous schools have to follow the the autonomous schools don't? Is there any benefit for the non-autonomous schools to become autonomous? Can they just declare themselves autonomous or does it require some kind of vote or something?

They can make their own decisions on football matters as autonomous conferences.

For other sports the voting is 3 votes for a P5, 2 votes for a G5 and 1 vote for a non-FBS league.

(04-10-2018 05:51 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(04-10-2018 12:57 PM)McKinney Wrote:  

(04-10-2018 11:26 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Found this NCAA document promulgated last September (2017) interesting, especially for those who like to invoke NCAA administrative categories as the basis for football playoff systems. It states:

"The 2016 reporting consists of eight separate segments – one for each of the three
Division I subdivisions and one for all Division I men’s and women’s basketball.
Important additions with this edition are separate groupings for the Autonomy
schools and the Non-Autonomy schools."

Look at Sections 4 and 5 of the report, which address revenues/expenses for "FBS Autonomy" and "FBS Non-Autonomy" schools. Very telling, IMO:

http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/...180123.pdf

The full quote is:

Quote:This 2017 edition provides summary information concerning revenues and expenses of NCAA Division I and its three subdivisions for the 2004 through 2016 fiscal year (i.e., institutions' fiscal years that ended within those respective calendar years). In addition, since this edition is the first to report data for the two FBS segments, comparisons are not possible for prior years for those groupings.

I can see you could interpret that two ways. Either they are referring to Autonomy, Non-Autonomy, and FCS.... or they're referring to FBS, FCS, and Non-Football.

It is the former rather than the latter.

No it's the latter. Older versions used the same language of "three subdivisions" with no further breakout of FBS. They're referring to what was known as Div IA, Div IAA and Div IAAA (nonfootball).

For those that continue to talk about the day that there will be a split within college football between the P5 and the G5, they have clearly been wrong. The split has already happened and we are currently witnessing a collegiate landscape divided.

These schools attempting to throw more money at a grand dream where they are getting heavily outspent by the P5 in television money and exposure is similar to a compulsive gambler continue to bet money not only to hit the jackpot, but also make up for all of the lost money already spent. In the end, someone always pays.

(04-10-2018 09:33 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(04-10-2018 08:50 PM)McKinney Wrote:  What is it that the autonomous schools are free from? Are there rules that the non-autonomous schools have to follow the the autonomous schools don't? Is there any benefit for the non-autonomous schools to become autonomous? Can they just declare themselves autonomous or does it require some kind of vote or something?

They can make their own decisions on football matters as autonomous conferences.

For other sports the voting is 3 votes for a P5, 2 votes for a G5 and 1 vote for a non-FBS league.

But it requires a majority vote of the 65 schools + the student reps (can't remember how many there are) PLUS another majority vote of the five leagues and anything they approve can be adopted by any Division I league.