(09-13-2018 02:57 PM)usffan Wrote:  

(09-13-2018 02:34 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-13-2018 01:39 PM)usffan Wrote:  

(09-12-2018 11:29 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-12-2018 09:57 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  Guys those are the details that need to be worked out. Maybe the cut-off is 48.
Just include the programs that make the money. If they are making money, somebody is watching and willing to pay.

This eliminates all the programs that have been grandfathered into conferences with big paydays.
It wouldn't eliminate the present conference just move the top programs from those conferences into one league.

Also need to add an element of promotion and relegation. Stop performing, stop making money, resting on your laurels, you get sent down.
CJ

There are less than 4 P schools that are subsidized above 10%.

There are no G5 schools subsidized less than 25%.

I think we have the answer already.

A healthy upper tier would consist of roughly 60 to 64 schools.

If you want another more exclusive point of separation then 48 is probably your number, but the wins / losses bell curve will be radically affected.

There's a reason you've been hearing 64 for these past 10 years.

As others have pointed out, this is a self-fulfilling prophecy. The reason why the P schools are less subsidized is because they're making the lion's share of the revenues. If the lower 1/4 of the P conferences were left to fend for themselves instead of profiting from the TV $$ that Alabama and Clemson generate, they'd be in the same position.

It's only a matter of time before the presidents of those institutions (since that's who will make these decisions, not the fans or even the ADs) get seduced by the cash thrown at them by somebody who points out the money they're leaving on the table.

USFFan

Not really. For most of the P5 it's like it is at Auburn or Alabama for instance where the TV revenue is only about 1/3 to 1/4 of the total revenue. Donations make up a significant portion of the total.

It took generations to get donations to those levels and that's the real advantage over many in the G5 and why G5 programs have higher subsidies.

If you look at the lower 1/4 of the P5 schools many you will find there are small privates like Wake Forest and Vanderbilt, or small state schools from smallish states with less football history than schools on the East Coast. Now we are talking Washington State and Oregon State.

Most of the large state schools East of the Mississippi or just West of it, are easily included inside the top 48 of the P5.

IMO football would have to be on its last leg before you see the upper tier dwindle to 32. I think the dividing line is monetary and not dependent solely on TV revenue and that the dividing line will eventually fall between 60 and 72 schools.

You're arguing two different things. The bottom of the P5 are definitely making more money for their athletic departments from TV than they are from donations to the athletic departments themselves. For example (since Texas Tech has been bandied about in here, and I didn't list them in the top 32), here are some numbers:

In fiscal year 2017, Texas Tech received $2.77MM in donations to the university (https://www.depts.ttu.edu/irim/Reports/S...TTUAFR.pdf)

In this 2015 article (http://www.lubbockonline.com/article/201...06139867), Texas Tech reports a number of revenues:
Football ($17.1MM - "90% of which is from ticket sales and seat options)
Donations to the Red Raider Club ($6.5MM)
Sponsorships ($5.5MM)
Big 12 TV payout ($25MM)

In other words, roughly 50% of their revenue is coming from the Big 12. That goes away, they're suddenly subsidizing more.

And rest assured, this is only one school, lest somebody think I'm picking on Tech.

Now, if a TV entity went to Texas and Oklahoma and said "join our venture and we'll quadruple your TV revenues FOR FOOTBALL alone," I argue that they'd jump at it. They've both already seen long time rivalries with A&M and Nebraska (respectively) disappear in search of the almighty dollar. I don't think they'll draw a line in the sand to keep Tech, Baylor, Kansas State and Iowa State attached at the hip over some sense of loyalty now.

As for the notion that this will only happen when football is on its last leg, that's a different argument, but one that I disagree with. This will happen if/when somebody makes an offer that's "too good to refuse."

USFFan

Your second link doesn't work and the first doesn't have to do with athletics but the numbers you posted don't flesh out with what's reported by USA Today.

Total Revenues for 2017 roughly 89 million. Big 12 payout for the year was roughly 34 million. So about 38%.

http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nc...426331002/

(09-12-2018 11:39 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(09-12-2018 10:07 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  The thing no one can ever effectively answer is WHY would anyone want to break? The non-wealthy are a resource that the richest programs use to enhance the reputation of their programs and to permit for more home games.

This is an important factor that is overlooked too often. The "name" programs are popular because they historically have had very lopsided W-L records, and one big reason they win so many more games than they lose is that they play so many games that they have at least a 90% chance of winning. If you create "the NFL of college football" and make all of those teams play a schedule for which every game is a 50-50 proposition, then you'll have a lot of teams that are around .500 every year. College football isn't the NFL. "Big time" college teams that are rarely above .500 will not keep their fanbase for very long because those fans are spoiled to expect 9 or more wins every year. Those big stadiums will empty out, TV viewers will watch something else, etc., if all these "big time" programs averaged 6 wins a year from now on.

That's why this won't happen. The people running these programs know they need their "90 percent" games to secure their impressive W-L records.

The super division could always put in a policy to qualify lower division games against DI, DII, DIII as home games counting toward win totals.

I've said before the line is going to be drawn around TV deals for a super division. They want everyone who brings value in a super division and those who don't out.

That leaves conferences like the MVC and A10 in a rocky situation since some of them are original NCAA Division 1 schools. They will have to find a safe landing pad in the MAC, AAC or CUSA if they can. Wichita has just done it with the AAC.

They want enough teams in the super division to ensure the continuity of March Madness. That needs at least 64 teams to make work but realistically your only going to want to invite the top half of the super division for it to make sense.

I see it ending up about at 10 conferences/150 schools with the attractive WCC/MVC/A10 schools moving over to the G5 to stay in the game.

(09-12-2018 08:48 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  This is what should be used to separate the contenders from the pretenders....

http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/

Take the top 32 and move on....
CJ

Most of the schools under consideration here have been members of their current conference for ages, generations, lifetimes. Few of them want to end that arrangement. Perhaps you offer the idea so casually because you and your Cardinals have transitioned through many conference moves in your lifetime. That is not the most common experience among other fans and universities.

I think a break from the NCAA is somewhat likely, however, the dismantling of the current conferences will not occur because it is unnecessary, costly, and carries the certainty of endless lawsuits about who realigns with whom.

A completely uncomplicated move would involve only the (projected) P4 conferences. It would not need to be exclusive, that is, other schools/conferences could include themselves. But the "big" schools could find means to discourage mavericks, apart from Notre Dame.
The membership would be fewer than sixty schools, in all likelihood. Efforts to arrive at a tidy number (64?) of schools is a waste of time. It is easy enough to bracket tournaments for any number of schools.

I am continually puzzled by the broad belief that conferences can be reorganized so easily. Ain't happenin'.

(09-12-2018 02:12 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(09-12-2018 12:38 PM)usffan Wrote:  That's fine, but there will be schools willing to be under .500 if they're well paid for it. Rutgers, Kansas, Wake Forest, Vandy - every conference already has people who sit back and collect checks for being the whipping boy.

Your 32 team proposal eliminates all of those teams in addition to eliminating the entire G5.

Which goes to arkstfan's point that you are compounding the problem by eliminating that many teams. Take Michigan, for example, and look at this season's schedule: You effectively want to take Western Michigan, SMU, Maryland, Rutgers, and Indiana off of Michigan's schedule and replace them with, say, LSU, Auburn, Clemson, Oklahoma, and Virginia Tech. Michigan's not going to win 9 games playing that schedule every year. They wouldn't even win 6 games a year against that schedule with their current personnel. "Big" programs like Michigan are not going to do that to themselves. They want and need teams like Western Michigan, SMU, Maryland, Rutgers, and Indiana on their football schedules. It's the only way to maintain a legacy of consistent winning at "college football's all-time winningest program".

And in the NFL every team has the same number of home games, and they can't DUCK teams - schedule is done by the league. And every game is a conference game, because first tie breaker is ALWAYS overall record, not division or conference record.

(09-14-2018 09:22 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(09-13-2018 02:57 PM)usffan Wrote:  

(09-13-2018 02:34 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-13-2018 01:39 PM)usffan Wrote:  

(09-12-2018 11:29 PM)JRsec Wrote:  There are less than 4 P schools that are subsidized above 10%.

There are no G5 schools subsidized less than 25%.

I think we have the answer already.

A healthy upper tier would consist of roughly 60 to 64 schools.

If you want another more exclusive point of separation then 48 is probably your number, but the wins / losses bell curve will be radically affected.

There's a reason you've been hearing 64 for these past 10 years.

As others have pointed out, this is a self-fulfilling prophecy. The reason why the P schools are less subsidized is because they're making the lion's share of the revenues. If the lower 1/4 of the P conferences were left to fend for themselves instead of profiting from the TV $$ that Alabama and Clemson generate, they'd be in the same position.

It's only a matter of time before the presidents of those institutions (since that's who will make these decisions, not the fans or even the ADs) get seduced by the cash thrown at them by somebody who points out the money they're leaving on the table.

USFFan

Not really. For most of the P5 it's like it is at Auburn or Alabama for instance where the TV revenue is only about 1/3 to 1/4 of the total revenue. Donations make up a significant portion of the total.

It took generations to get donations to those levels and that's the real advantage over many in the G5 and why G5 programs have higher subsidies.

If you look at the lower 1/4 of the P5 schools many you will find there are small privates like Wake Forest and Vanderbilt, or small state schools from smallish states with less football history than schools on the East Coast. Now we are talking Washington State and Oregon State.

Most of the large state schools East of the Mississippi or just West of it, are easily included inside the top 48 of the P5.

IMO football would have to be on its last leg before you see the upper tier dwindle to 32. I think the dividing line is monetary and not dependent solely on TV revenue and that the dividing line will eventually fall between 60 and 72 schools.

You're arguing two different things. The bottom of the P5 are definitely making more money for their athletic departments from TV than they are from donations to the athletic departments themselves. For example (since Texas Tech has been bandied about in here, and I didn't list them in the top 32), here are some numbers:

In fiscal year 2017, Texas Tech received $2.77MM in donations to the university (https://www.depts.ttu.edu/irim/Reports/S...TTUAFR.pdf)

In this 2015 article (http://www.lubbockonline.com/article/201...06139867), Texas Tech reports a number of revenues:
Football ($17.1MM - "90% of which is from ticket sales and seat options)
Donations to the Red Raider Club ($6.5MM)
Sponsorships ($5.5MM)
Big 12 TV payout ($25MM)

In other words, roughly 50% of their revenue is coming from the Big 12. That goes away, they're suddenly subsidizing more.

And rest assured, this is only one school, lest somebody think I'm picking on Tech.

Now, if a TV entity went to Texas and Oklahoma and said "join our venture and we'll quadruple your TV revenues FOR FOOTBALL alone," I argue that they'd jump at it. They've both already seen long time rivalries with A&M and Nebraska (respectively) disappear in search of the almighty dollar. I don't think they'll draw a line in the sand to keep Tech, Baylor, Kansas State and Iowa State attached at the hip over some sense of loyalty now.

As for the notion that this will only happen when football is on its last leg, that's a different argument, but one that I disagree with. This will happen if/when somebody makes an offer that's "too good to refuse."

USFFan

Your second link doesn't work and the first doesn't have to do with athletics but the numbers you posted don't flesh out with what's reported by USA Today.

Total Revenues for 2017 roughly 89 million. Big 12 payout for the year was roughly 34 million. So about 38%.

http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nc...426331002/

No idea why, but here's a retry of the link:

http://www.lubbockonline.com/article/201.../306139867

And here's where I drew the numbers:

Quote:Big 12 bucks

The Big 12 announced another record distribution two weeks ago, this time $252 million to be shared by the league’s 10 members.

“Thank goodness for the Big 12,” Gleason said.

Tech’s $25 million share represents nearly one-third of the $76.1 million budget for fiscal year 2016, which starts on Sept. 1, 2015. For fiscal year 2015 that ends Aug. 31, the department’s initial budget approved by the Board of Regents was a little more than $69 million, of which $20 million was the annual Big 12 revenue distribution related to the conference’s television contracts.

The budget wound up growing to $72 million because of the seat-replacement project currently ongoing at Jones AT&T Stadium. That’s a $3.9 million venture with $2.9 million coming from athletic department reserves and $1 million from gifts.

...

Quote:Football vital

Beyond the $25 million payout from the Big 12, next year’s budget projects $17.1 million in revenue from football, roughly 90 percent of that from ticket sales and seat options. That’s the department’s second-biggest source of revenue.

There’s a projected $6.5 million from donations to the Red Raider Club and $5.5 million from sponsorships.

USFFan

Edited to add that the link in this reply appears to work as of right now...

(09-18-2018 12:06 PM)usffan Wrote:  No idea why, but here's a retry of the link:

http://www.lubbockonline.com/article/201.../306139867

And here's where I drew the numbers:

Quote:Big 12 bucks

The Big 12 announced another record distribution two weeks ago, this time $252 million to be shared by the league’s 10 members.

“Thank goodness for the Big 12,” Gleason said.

Tech’s $25 million share represents nearly one-third of the $76.1 million budget for fiscal year 2016, which starts on Sept. 1, 2015. For fiscal year 2015 that ends Aug. 31, the department’s initial budget approved by the Board of Regents was a little more than $69 million, of which $20 million was the annual Big 12 revenue distribution related to the conference’s television contracts.

The budget wound up growing to $72 million because of the seat-replacement project currently ongoing at Jones AT&T Stadium. That’s a $3.9 million venture with $2.9 million coming from athletic department reserves and $1 million from gifts.

...

It says right there that it's 1/3 of their budget.

(09-18-2018 12:17 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(09-18-2018 12:06 PM)usffan Wrote:  No idea why, but here's a retry of the link:

http://www.lubbockonline.com/article/201.../306139867

And here's where I drew the numbers:

Quote:Big 12 bucks

The Big 12 announced another record distribution two weeks ago, this time $252 million to be shared by the league’s 10 members.

“Thank goodness for the Big 12,” Gleason said.

Tech’s $25 million share represents nearly one-third of the $76.1 million budget for fiscal year 2016, which starts on Sept. 1, 2015. For fiscal year 2015 that ends Aug. 31, the department’s initial budget approved by the Board of Regents was a little more than $69 million, of which $20 million was the annual Big 12 revenue distribution related to the conference’s television contracts.

The budget wound up growing to $72 million because of the seat-replacement project currently ongoing at Jones AT&T Stadium. That’s a $3.9 million venture with $2.9 million coming from athletic department reserves and $1 million from gifts.

...

It says right there that it's 1/3 of their budget.

So your quibble is essentially over 1/6 (the difference between 3/6 and 2/6)? Point remains - the TV revenue is why they're able to sit back and collect paychecks compared to non-A5 teams.

USFFan

(09-18-2018 12:17 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(09-18-2018 12:06 PM)usffan Wrote:  No idea why, but here's a retry of the link:

http://www.lubbockonline.com/article/201.../306139867

And here's where I drew the numbers:

Quote:Big 12 bucks

The Big 12 announced another record distribution two weeks ago, this time $252 million to be shared by the league’s 10 members.

“Thank goodness for the Big 12,” Gleason said.

Tech’s $25 million share represents nearly one-third of the $76.1 million budget for fiscal year 2016, which starts on Sept. 1, 2015. For fiscal year 2015 that ends Aug. 31, the department’s initial budget approved by the Board of Regents was a little more than $69 million, of which $20 million was the annual Big 12 revenue distribution related to the conference’s television contracts.

The budget wound up growing to $72 million because of the seat-replacement project currently ongoing at Jones AT&T Stadium. That’s a $3.9 million venture with $2.9 million coming from athletic department reserves and $1 million from gifts.

...

It says right there that it's 1/3 of their budget.

TV money is nice but many fans on message boards overrate the importance of TV money and underrate the importance of ticket revenue and donations.

For every program in the top 45 in revenue (at least), ticket revenue plus donations exceeds media revenue. The top 25 (approximately) have ticket revenue plus donations that is more than twice their media revenue.

(09-18-2018 01:15 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(09-18-2018 12:17 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(09-18-2018 12:06 PM)usffan Wrote:  No idea why, but here's a retry of the link:

http://www.lubbockonline.com/article/201.../306139867

And here's where I drew the numbers:

Quote:Big 12 bucks

The Big 12 announced another record distribution two weeks ago, this time $252 million to be shared by the league’s 10 members.

“Thank goodness for the Big 12,” Gleason said.

Tech’s $25 million share represents nearly one-third of the $76.1 million budget for fiscal year 2016, which starts on Sept. 1, 2015. For fiscal year 2015 that ends Aug. 31, the department’s initial budget approved by the Board of Regents was a little more than $69 million, of which $20 million was the annual Big 12 revenue distribution related to the conference’s television contracts.

The budget wound up growing to $72 million because of the seat-replacement project currently ongoing at Jones AT&T Stadium. That’s a $3.9 million venture with $2.9 million coming from athletic department reserves and $1 million from gifts.

...

It says right there that it's 1/3 of their budget.

TV money is nice but many fans on message boards overrate the importance of TV money and underrate the importance of ticket revenue and donations.

For every program in the top 45 in revenue (at least), ticket revenue plus donations exceeds media revenue. The top 25 (approximately) have ticket revenue plus donations that is more than twice their media revenue.

It depends. For the top-tier programs, like Alabama and USC and LSU and Notre Dame, yes, the media revenue is not the biggest chunk of revenue and they would still be loaded with cash without it. E.g., Alabama has about $160m in revenue so SECN money is big but nowhere near what they make locally from donations and attendance revenue.

Where I think the G5 critics are correct though is when you look at the bottom level of the A5. The A5 schools with $70m in athletic revenue. For them, the $25m media money is vital, without it they would be struggling to get by like many G5 schools.

Those are the schools that irk the G5 fans the most, because they see those bottom-rung A5 schools as just lucky, no better than themselves but just happen to hold a golden ticket thanks to affiliation with the real Big Boy schools.

(09-18-2018 01:15 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(09-18-2018 12:17 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(09-18-2018 12:06 PM)usffan Wrote:  No idea why, but here's a retry of the link:

http://www.lubbockonline.com/article/201.../306139867

And here's where I drew the numbers:

Quote:Big 12 bucks

The Big 12 announced another record distribution two weeks ago, this time $252 million to be shared by the league’s 10 members.

“Thank goodness for the Big 12,” Gleason said.

Tech’s $25 million share represents nearly one-third of the $76.1 million budget for fiscal year 2016, which starts on Sept. 1, 2015. For fiscal year 2015 that ends Aug. 31, the department’s initial budget approved by the Board of Regents was a little more than $69 million, of which $20 million was the annual Big 12 revenue distribution related to the conference’s television contracts.

The budget wound up growing to $72 million because of the seat-replacement project currently ongoing at Jones AT&T Stadium. That’s a $3.9 million venture with $2.9 million coming from athletic department reserves and $1 million from gifts.

...

It says right there that it's 1/3 of their budget.

TV money is nice but many fans on message boards overrate the importance of TV money and underrate the importance of ticket revenue and donations.

For every program in the top 45 in revenue (at least), ticket revenue plus donations exceeds media revenue. The top 25 (approximately) have ticket revenue plus donations that is more than twice their media revenue.

This was why I posted the article to begin with. It points out that total football revenue ($17.1MM) plus total Red Raider Club donations ($6.5MM) are less than TV revenues for Texas Tech, which was #25 in terms of "most valuable football programs." So I completely disagree with the "top 45 (at least)" assertion.

USFFan

(09-18-2018 01:22 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Where I think the G5 critics are correct though is when you look at the bottom level of the A5. The A5 schools with $70m in athletic revenue. For them, the $25m media money is vital, without it they would be struggling to get by like many G5 schools.

The only P5 schools with less than $70 million/year in "real revenue" (i.e., revenue minus subsidies and student fees) are Washington State, Rutgers, and Vanderbilt. Everyone knows that if you started a P5 conference from scratch in 2018 that Wazzu and Vandy would not be included, and Rutgers is either a long-term play or a grab for cable boxes depending on who you ask. At any rate it's not worth getting mad at those programs for being fortunate, because excluding those schools doesn't mean anyone else would be included. In fact, as I mentioned in another thread, every one of the P5 conferences would make more money per school by excluding their two least valuable members and not including anyone else.

There's a lot of ways to spin this. You can say TV money is only 25% or 30% or whatever of the total budget but it's still 30 million dollars or so which is more than most G5 budgets. If you gave ODU an extra 30 million, I guarantee our ticket sales and donations would increase. We'll never be a major flagship like Texas that will be worth a billion dollars no matter how deep or long they suck. But it would certainly make it easier to succeed. And that success would make it easier to make money.

(09-18-2018 01:45 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(09-18-2018 01:22 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Where I think the G5 critics are correct though is when you look at the bottom level of the A5. The A5 schools with $70m in athletic revenue. For them, the $25m media money is vital, without it they would be struggling to get by like many G5 schools.

The only P5 schools with less than $70 million/year in "real revenue" (i.e., revenue minus subsidies and student fees) are Washington State, Rutgers, and Vanderbilt. Everyone knows that if you started a P5 conference from scratch in 2018 that Wazzu and Vandy would not be included, and Rutgers is either a long-term play or a grab for cable boxes depending on who you ask. At any rate it's not worth getting mad at those programs for being fortunate, because excluding those schools doesn't mean anyone else would be included. In fact, as I mentioned in another thread, every one of the P5 conferences would make more money per school by excluding their two least valuable members and not including anyone else.

Subtract the $25MM in revenues from the A5 (or add the $25MM to the non-A5) and see how that changes the rankings. And, by the way, that's for the Big 12. The media rights are larger for the SEC (Vandy) and the B1G (Rutgers) than $25MM, by a long shot.

USFFan

(09-18-2018 01:56 PM)usffan Wrote:  

(09-18-2018 01:45 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(09-18-2018 01:22 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Where I think the G5 critics are correct though is when you look at the bottom level of the A5. The A5 schools with $70m in athletic revenue. For them, the $25m media money is vital, without it they would be struggling to get by like many G5 schools.

The only P5 schools with less than $70 million/year in "real revenue" (i.e., revenue minus subsidies and student fees) are Washington State, Rutgers, and Vanderbilt. Everyone knows that if you started a P5 conference from scratch in 2018 that Wazzu and Vandy would not be included, and Rutgers is either a long-term play or a grab for cable boxes depending on who you ask. At any rate it's not worth getting mad at those programs for being fortunate, because excluding those schools doesn't mean anyone else would be included. In fact, as I mentioned in another thread, every one of the P5 conferences would make more money per school by excluding their two least valuable members and not including anyone else.

Subtract the $25MM in revenues from the A5 (or add the $25MM to the non-A5) and see how that changes the rankings. And, by the way, that's for the Big 12. The media rights are larger for the SEC (Vandy) and the B1G (Rutgers) than $25MM, by a long shot.

USFFan

You're using old numbers. Big 12 payout was 34 million plus last year.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nc...426331002/

(09-18-2018 01:58 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(09-18-2018 01:56 PM)usffan Wrote:  

(09-18-2018 01:45 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(09-18-2018 01:22 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Where I think the G5 critics are correct though is when you look at the bottom level of the A5. The A5 schools with $70m in athletic revenue. For them, the $25m media money is vital, without it they would be struggling to get by like many G5 schools.

The only P5 schools with less than $70 million/year in "real revenue" (i.e., revenue minus subsidies and student fees) are Washington State, Rutgers, and Vanderbilt. Everyone knows that if you started a P5 conference from scratch in 2018 that Wazzu and Vandy would not be included, and Rutgers is either a long-term play or a grab for cable boxes depending on who you ask. At any rate it's not worth getting mad at those programs for being fortunate, because excluding those schools doesn't mean anyone else would be included. In fact, as I mentioned in another thread, every one of the P5 conferences would make more money per school by excluding their two least valuable members and not including anyone else.

Subtract the $25MM in revenues from the A5 (or add the $25MM to the non-A5) and see how that changes the rankings. And, by the way, that's for the Big 12. The media rights are larger for the SEC (Vandy) and the B1G (Rutgers) than $25MM, by a long shot.

USFFan

You're using old numbers. Big 12 payout was 34 million plus last year.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nc...426331002/

To be fair, that's from 2015, and it allows an apples-to-apples comparison with Texas Tech's football and donations revenue. I tend to doubt that those revenues rose 36% in that same time span, but I don't have any published evidence that they didn't.

USFFan