(04-20-2018 07:15 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(04-20-2018 07:12 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  The Big Ten is the old man with a big bank account and a limp **** when it comes to getting it done where it counts.

Do they make a blue pill for:

Not putting a team into the college football play-offs?
No round ball championships since ?
Sucking in college baseball and whining that the season starts too early?


The big bank account doesn't make-up for the failure to perform on the field or court.
CJ

Ask this question in 5-10 years when SAban is making $30M a year to put Wisconsin in the national title game and Calipari is making $20M a year to take Rutgers to the Final Four.

To me, CJ puts the cart before the horse: Intercollegiate athletics exists to make money for the schools involved, not win national championships. National championships make fans feel great, but institutionally, they only matter if they somehow pay off in more money (and they can, if the fan excitement of winning the title leads to more butts in the seats, more merchandise sales, more alumni donations, higher student enrollment, etc.).

But that usually isn't much the case (those factors don't seem to vary much before and after championship seasons), and in any event the impact is dwarfed by annual conference payouts.

Fans who buy shirts at Walmart might feel differently, but any school in the country would rather by Purdue, cashing a $50m B1G check every year while winning nothing, than UConn, winning hoops titles every few years, but earning peanuts in the AAC.

And that's also why the B1G is much more powerful than the ACC, has raided the ACC, even though the B1G hasn't won a hoops title in 18 years while the ACC has won two of the last four, and the B1G has won one football title the past 15 years, while the ACC has won two of the past five.

I wonder if anyone has tried to correlate conference payouts to on field/court performance. It seems to me that if, at the end of the day, the same few schools are still the ones competing for championships, and the same schools are the conference and national also rans, then the only people benefitting from all this money is the coaches.

If Nick Saban or Urban Meyer snag a $5 million raise because their school has received more money than they really need, does that make them better coaches than they were before they got the raise? And if they aren't, how have their teams benefitted from that extra revenue? The Ohio States and Alabamas of college football have always had the best coaches money can buy, long before the ESPNs and FOXes of the media world started dumping huge piles of cash in their laps. So what has changed?

Frankly, if at the end of the day there is still a far greater gap between the top earners in the B1G and their poorest schools than there is between the B1G and the SEC, then all that money doesn't matter much.

(04-20-2018 07:15 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(04-20-2018 07:12 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  The Big Ten is the old man with a big bank account and a limp **** when it comes to getting it done where it counts.

Do they make a blue pill for:

Not putting a team into the college football play-offs?
No round ball championships since ?
Sucking in college baseball and whining that the season starts too early?


The big bank account doesn't make-up for the failure to perform on the field or court.
CJ

Ask this question in 5-10 years when SAban is making $30M a year to put Wisconsin in the national title game and Calipari is making $20M a year to take Rutgers to the Final Four.

And UK was going to win Natty's in CBB consistently with 5 Freshmen

(04-20-2018 09:00 AM)ken d Wrote:  If Nick Saban or Urban Meyer snag a $5 million raise because their school has received more money than they really need, does that make them better coaches than they were before they got the raise? And if they aren't, how have their teams benefitted from that extra revenue?

Their teams benefit because they don't only have money, they spend it effectively. Some other programs have money but don't spend it effectively enough to win consistently.

The compensation for Saban and Meyer is more than they personally need, but if it helps to keep them from considering other jobs, or if it helps to keep them where they are for a couple of extra years before retiring, it's worth it to the donors. What those teams have is far better than either losing an excellent coach because you didn't pay him more, or even worse, giving a big contract to a coach who doesn't win and then having to beg your donors to pay a huge buyout to get rid of the guy.

(04-20-2018 09:52 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(04-20-2018 09:00 AM)ken d Wrote:  If Nick Saban or Urban Meyer snag a $5 million raise because their school has received more money than they really need, does that make them better coaches than they were before they got the raise? And if they aren't, how have their teams benefitted from that extra revenue?

Their teams benefit because they don't only have money, they spend it effectively. Some other programs have money but don't spend it effectively enough to win consistently.

The compensation for Saban and Meyer is more than they personally need, but if it helps to keep them from considering other jobs, or if it helps to keep them where they are for a couple of extra years before retiring, it's worth it to the donors. What those teams have is far better than either losing an excellent coach because you didn't pay him more, or even worse, giving a big contract to a coach who doesn't win and then having to beg your donors to pay a huge buyout to get rid of the guy.

Texas brings in as much money as everybody. Do they not spend it effectively? What it sounds like to me that what you are saying is that there is some other tangible or intangible edge the successful programs have that others don't. But my point is more that it isn't conference distributions that make whatever difference there is. It's whatever edge the perennial top teams already have from within that matters.

As far as ND is concerned, the athletic department annual revenues fully fund its entire athletics programs (26 sports) and then sends $20+ million per year to the academic side for the academic scholarship fund.

"According to Nevala, the Notre Dame athletics department is committed to providing $20 million worth of revenue to the university. This $20 million is additional to the amount of money the athletics department spends to fund all of the department’s scholarships. The $20 million worth of revenue provided by the athletics department to the university is used by the university to fund other students’ financial aid and to cover operating expenses."

http://businessofcollegesports.com/2012/...-expenses/

It also went on an athletics building spree the past decade or so, with a new hockey arena, new soccer stadium, new lacrosse stadium, new softball stadium, etc....and a $400 million dollar building project involving Notre Dame Stadium.

http://www.und.com/facilities/nd-facilities.html

https://crossroads.nd.edu/news/biggest-n...athletics/


It also pays Jack Swarbrick $3 million per year (twice what the next highest paid athletic director makes) and found a bank vault to pay Charlie Weis a ton of money to not coach there.

Brian Kelly is paid pretty well, as are most of the coaches at ND.



http://wunc.org/post/its-not-just-coache...s#stream/0


So, cash has never been a problem at ND. There was a time when it made more TV money than anyone. That did not translate into national championships.

What vital need does ND athletics have for, say, another $20-25 million per year (bringing it from $28 million a year from TV/ACC to close to the Big Ten payouts)? It would just increase the payment to the academic side (which would be great) and do not much additional for the athletic department.

My thought is that conference payouts and TV money are nice bragging rights, but do not always translate to a big difference on the field.

(04-20-2018 09:59 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(04-20-2018 09:52 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(04-20-2018 09:00 AM)ken d Wrote:  If Nick Saban or Urban Meyer snag a $5 million raise because their school has received more money than they really need, does that make them better coaches than they were before they got the raise? And if they aren't, how have their teams benefitted from that extra revenue?

Their teams benefit because they don't only have money, they spend it effectively. Some other programs have money but don't spend it effectively enough to win consistently.

The compensation for Saban and Meyer is more than they personally need, but if it helps to keep them from considering other jobs, or if it helps to keep them where they are for a couple of extra years before retiring, it's worth it to the donors. What those teams have is far better than either losing an excellent coach because you didn't pay him more, or even worse, giving a big contract to a coach who doesn't win and then having to beg your donors to pay a huge buyout to get rid of the guy.

Texas brings in as much money as everybody. Do they not spend it effectively? What it sounds like to me that what you are saying is that there is some other tangible or intangible edge the successful programs have that others don't. But my point is more that it isn't conference distributions that make whatever difference there is. It's whatever edge the perennial top teams already have from within that matters.

Well, yeah, Texas is a good example that money is very important but not enough by itself. Having coaches like TCU's Patterson and his staff plus "enough" money is better than having less effective coaches and "more than enough" money.

The edge that places like Texas and USC will always have is that when they eventually manage to get top-notch coaching and management, then they have the opportunity to combine the best coaching and the most resources like Saban and Meyer do.

(04-20-2018 10:21 AM)TerryD Wrote:  As far as ND is concerned, the athletic department annual revenues fully fund its entire athletics programs (26 sports) and then sends $20+ million per year to the academic side for the academic scholarship fund.

"According to Nevala, the Notre Dame athletics department is committed to providing $20 million worth of revenue to the university. This $20 million is additional to the amount of money the athletics department spends to fund all of the department’s scholarships. The $20 million worth of revenue provided by the athletics department to the university is used by the university to fund other students’ financial aid and to cover operating expenses."

http://businessofcollegesports.com/2012/...-expenses/

It also went on an athletics building spree the past decade or so, with a new hockey arena, new soccer stadium, new lacrosse stadium, new softball stadium, etc....and a $400 million dollar building project involving Notre Dame Stadium.

http://www.und.com/facilities/nd-facilities.html

https://crossroads.nd.edu/news/biggest-n...athletics/


It also pays Jack Swarbrick $3 million per year (twice what the next highest paid athletic director makes) and found a bank vault to pay Charlie Weis a ton of money to not coach there.

Brian Kelly is paid pretty well, as are most of the coaches at ND.



http://wunc.org/post/its-not-just-coache...s#stream/0


So, cash has never been a problem at ND. There was a time when it made more TV money than anyone. That did not translate into national championships.

What vital need does ND athletics have for, say, another $20-25 million per year (bringing it from $28 million a year from TV/ACC to close to the Big Ten payouts)? It would just increase the payment to the academic side (which would be great) and do not much additional for the athletic department.

My thought is that conference payouts and TV money are nice bragging rights, but do not always translate to a big difference on the field.

Well, ND does have a history of paying top-dollar to attract what it thinks are top coaches, and if you want to keep doing that, you have to have the money. And as conference payouts go up, the bidding dollars for top coaches goes up too.

Also, as you say, far more importantly, ND sends a good $20m a year to the "academic side" (read, the actual university). Surely, even if the athletic department can't find an immediate use for an extra $20m, the academic "side" can.

(04-20-2018 07:15 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(04-20-2018 07:12 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  The Big Ten is the old man with a big bank account and a limp **** when it comes to getting it done where it counts.

Do they make a blue pill for:

Not putting a team into the college football play-offs?
No round ball championships since ?
Sucking in college baseball and whining that the season starts too early?


The big bank account doesn't make-up for the failure to perform on the field or court.
CJ

Ask this question in 5-10 years when SAban is making $30M a year to put Wisconsin in the national title game and Calipari is making $20M a year to take Rutgers to the Final Four.

5 to 10 years from now Saban will be 71-76 by your timeline. He'll retire when he leaves Alabama and if he wants a check he'll remain and be the A.D..

The Big 10 isn't going to hire away the SEC's coaches. At the end of the day we still earn more and will pay more. TV money is truly only 1/4 to 1/5th of our revenue total.

And as far as Calipari is concerned there are many at Kentucky who would say, "Take Calipari,.....please?"

(04-20-2018 07:12 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  The Big Ten is the old man with a big bank account and a limp **** when it comes to getting it done where it counts.

Do they make a blue pill for:

Not putting a team into the college football play-offs?
No round ball championships since ?
Sucking in college baseball and whining that the season starts too early?


The big bank account doesn't make-up for the failure to perform on the field or court.
CJ

Yeah, and how much did those hookers cost again?

(04-20-2018 11:34 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

Quote:Ask this question in 5-10 years when SAban is making $30M a year to put Wisconsin in the national title game and Calipari is making $20M a year to take Rutgers to the Final Four.

5 to 10 years from now Saban will be 71-76 by your timeline. He'll retire when he leaves Alabama and if he wants a check he'll remain and be the A.D..

The Big 10 isn't going to hire away the SEC's coaches. At the end of the day we still earn more and will pay more. TV money is truly only 1/4 to 1/5th of our revenue total.

And as far as Calipari is concerned there are many at Kentucky who would say, "Take Calipari,.....please?"

I believe you're missing the point. Yes, Saban and Calipari will get older, but there will be top coaches after them. *If* the Big 10 has and maintains a revenue gap with the SEC, *then* you'll see the mid-tier of the Big 10 use that money to poach top SEC coaches to compete with the top of the Big 10.

If the gap is trivial, nonexistent or negative, then the Big Ten won't poach coaches. I was responding to "The big bank account doesn't make-up for the failure to perform on the field or court." The point is, the big bank account can buy the people who produce results on the field or on the court.

(04-20-2018 12:58 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  I was responding to "The big bank account doesn't make-up for the failure to perform on the field or court." The point is, the big bank account can buy the people who produce results on the field or on the court.

Current TV revenue is the only edge the Big Ten has over the SEC. The SEC has and will continue to have a revenue edge in other areas. The median (7th and 8th) revenue departments in the SEC are Kentucky and Arkansas. Each brings in about $62 million/year in combined ticket sales and donations (according to the USA Today database), more than their or anyone else's TV revenue.

Also, the very best coaches want $$$ but also want to win titles. You can offer the next Saban $25 million/year, maybe, but you can't convince him that he can win national titles at Maryland or Indiana, and you can't convince him that the best place for him is a football stadium that looks like the ones at Maryland or Indiana. That coach will just take the Maryland/Indiana offer and have his agent use it to get as much $$$ as possible out of a program, in the Big Ten or elsewhere, where you actually can win titles.

(04-20-2018 12:58 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(04-20-2018 11:34 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

Quote:Ask this question in 5-10 years when SAban is making $30M a year to put Wisconsin in the national title game and Calipari is making $20M a year to take Rutgers to the Final Four.

5 to 10 years from now Saban will be 71-76 by your timeline. He'll retire when he leaves Alabama and if he wants a check he'll remain and be the A.D..

The Big 10 isn't going to hire away the SEC's coaches. At the end of the day we still earn more and will pay more. TV money is truly only 1/4 to 1/5th of our revenue total.

And as far as Calipari is concerned there are many at Kentucky who would say, "Take Calipari,.....please?"

I believe you're missing the point. Yes, Saban and Calipari will get older, but there will be top coaches after them. *If* the Big 10 has and maintains a revenue gap with the SEC, *then* you'll see the mid-tier of the Big 10 use that money to poach top SEC coaches to compete with the top of the Big 10.

If the gap is trivial, nonexistent or negative, then the Big Ten won't poach coaches. I was responding to "The big bank account doesn't make-up for the failure to perform on the field or court." The point is, the big bank account can buy the people who produce results on the field or on the court.

John, you are the one missing the point. The Big 10, even with its big "TV" revenue boost which starts next year, will still on average earn 10 million dollars less than the average SEC school.

I agree that if the total revenue gap is within 5 million to 7 million it won't make much difference. We are talking about our top programs earning in ranges of 150 to 200 million per year in gross total revenue (revenue from all sources of which TV is only 1 and only accounts for 20% to 25% of the total for most P5 schools). Statistically speaking 5 to 7 million really doesn't register when your revenue totals are that large.

What you are suggesting will help the mid tier of the Big 10, but the mid tier of the Big 10 has been significantly behind the SEC because Ohio State and Michigan's numbers skew the Big 10 totals more than Alabama and Texas A&M's totals skew the numbers of the SEC.

If you will take a trip to the SEC board here and look at the pinned posts you will see where I've broken out the numbers for all of the P5 schools and have done so by conference. I think you will see what I'm talking about if you do.

Last year the SEC's payout for TV revenue was 40.9 million. But, it was the year that the Sugar Bowl was affected by the CFP rotation of bowls. So we missed out on 3 million per school in payouts. Last year the Big 10 paid out 38.5 million. Next year you will pay out 51.1 to full members. Next year the SEC will have their 3 million back from the Sugar Bowl and we have built in back-loaded escalators in our contract so we'll get a bump of about 2 million on top of that. So we'll be sitting at 46 million when the Big 10 is at 51.1 and that is hardly enough for the Big 10 to catch up in total revenue and statistically the SEC averages 127.9 million in total revenue per conference school so 5 million in TV revenue is not even 4% of an overall difference.

The Big 10 has improved and it is in large part due to coaching hires. All of your schools make enough now to hire good coaches. Your conference was just late to the game of paying enough to attract good coaches. Ohio State ruffled some feathers in the Big 10 when they paid Urban what they did. Since then others are following suit. But it is because Urban brought OSU a championship.

My point is that for all of Wilner's bluster in that article he intentionally cropped information he knew to be true in order to play to his market to make a point. USA Today which was cited plays to the Northeast. This kind of journalism is now the norm. Therefore, there is no massive 10 million dollar difference unless you game the numbers to create one. So he compares next year's numbers for the Big 10 to this year's numbers for the SEC, fails to mention the -3 million due to the Sugar Bowl rotation for this past year, and doesn't mention the standard escalators that all conferences have back-loaded into their contracts when they aren't in the first year of a contract like the Big 10 will be next year.

If you compare this year to this year the Big 10 is 2.5 million behind in TV revenue. If you compare next year to next year the Big 10 will be up by 5 million not factoring in the Big 10's 2% revenue loss in Comcast or the SEC's entry into the Northeast via Altice.

He cites the Big 10's coming 2023 contract renewal. That's meaningless too. The PAC / Big 12 / and SEC for T1 will all be renewing about the same time and the ACC which wont be has a built in renegotiation clause should they add schools (as does the SEC).

So no matter how people want to spin these things nobody's contracts are set in stone as all of them have built in wiggle room clauses to keep them from being trapped (except the SEC's deal with CBS which comes up for renewal in 2024).

These kinds of articles come out every year after the basketball tourney to sell newspapers. On the internet they appear to drive hits.

So the impact on the Big 10's ability to steal coaches from elsewhere is nil. The Big 10 already has enough to be competitive in coaching hires. There is no change in that reality because of the TV revenue which isn't even a 4% difference between our schools.

So what I'm telling you is that we are already the wealthiest two conferences and there isn't enough difference between us, and won't be moving forward, to affect our ability to hire who we want to hire. And of all of the revenue sources the TV revenue will likely never be the deciding factor in an inequity. You have the larger market by a skosh, and we have the higher % of the the total population who actually watches the games. So SEC schools and Big 10 schools that desire to compete for the best coaches will statistically be on equal footing in spite of any TV revenue difference one way or the other. It's a click bait title and article for the silly season.

(04-20-2018 07:12 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  The Big Ten is the old man with a big bank account and a limp **** when it comes to getting it done where it counts.

Do they make a blue pill for:

Not putting a team into the college football play-offs?
No round ball championships since ?
Sucking in college baseball and whining that the season starts too early?


The big bank account doesn't make-up for the failure to perform on the field or court.
CJ

Says the man from the dirtiest school in the country.

(04-20-2018 02:43 AM)stever20 Wrote:  those numbers are NOT TV money. that's full conference distribution that the conference gives schools for everything.

also the numbers from 2017 are for the 2016-17 school year. So SEC and Big Ten both had their normal Sugar/Rose bowls.
if the Big Ten is up to 51 million for the 2017-18 school year that would be for a year with no Big Ten Rose Bowl. So whatever the gap is between the Big Ten and SEC will be maintained next year....

No Stever. The SEC made 40.4 million for 2016-17 and that did include the Sugar Bowl. Unlike the other conferences the SEC released, in late February of this year, the distribution totals for 2017-8 and that was 40.9 million and did not include the Sugar Bowl. So minus that 3 million for the 2017-8 season the SEC only experienced a 500,000 dollar increase over the previous year, and we would not have had that if not for the escalator. Next year the SEC will receive between 45-46 million. So the difference projected for 2018 (the B1G's first big payout year) is about 5 million as I stated. But this is all just TV/Bowl/and Tourney money. Not Gross Total Revenue.

Now the gross total revenue figures are for 2016-7, and they include all P5 conferences. The 2017-8 gross total revenue figures probably won't be out until after June of this year.

In the article referenced, the Big 10 is expected to pay out 38.5 for 2017-8. So next year the gap in TV revenue alone will be 5 million dollars to the advantage of the Big 10.

Gross Total Revenue for the SEC when it is released for 2017-8 will be flatter depending upon contributions and attendance. I expect the Big 10 to close the gap there from the 13 million deficit of 2016-7 to 10 million with the SEC holding the advantage.

The article was flawed. It compared 2018-9 expected payouts for the Big 10 to the 2017-8 announced payouts for the SEC and failed to factor in what I cited.

Except that no it's not. The Big Ten payout of 38.5 million was for 2016-17. Look at the thing from Michigan. FY17 for Big Ten is the 2016-17 season. That was a year with the Big Ten in the Rose Bowl like normal. FY18 for the Big Ten is the 2017-18 season(you can see it from the memo from Michigan- it says its going up due to the new tv deal, which started this season). So for this season if what you are saying is correct with the SEC- it'll be 51.1 million for the Big Ten and 40.9 million for the SEC. BOTH conferences will see it go up next year with the Rose/Sugar games back in the fold for each conference.

(04-21-2018 01:23 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  For the Notre Dame fans here, I assume most of those donors are over 60 years old, right?. What happens when those donors die? Will their children and grandchildren be as generous to the university?

Younger Gen Xers, Millenials and Gen Z either have too much student debt or are just not interested in sports like older Gen Xers and Baby Boomers were before them. Most universities will not feel the impact now but in 20 years, it will be interesting how less donations and the changing landscape in television/technology will affect most FBS programs.

The Baby Boomers have a ton of money...much of it will pass on to their kids/grandkids...and so on. I'm not as worried.

(04-20-2018 12:29 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(04-20-2018 07:12 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  The Big Ten is the old man with a big bank account and a limp **** when it comes to getting it done where it counts.

Do they make a blue pill for:

Not putting a team into the college football play-offs?
No round ball championships since ?
Sucking in college baseball and whining that the season starts too early?


The big bank account doesn't make-up for the failure to perform on the field or court.
CJ

Yeah, and how much did those hookers cost again?