(05-29-2018 12:20 PM)ken d Wrote:  This is the largest line item in the NCAA's budget - even before distributions from the Basketball Performance Fund we are all familiar with (the "units" earned by participating in and winning games in the NCAAT). The NCAA reports that it spent over $210 million dollars on this, out of its annual revenues of $950 million.

Does anyone know who the recipients of this money are? The total amounts to about $600K a year for every D-I school.

Other line items include the Student Assistance Fund ($82 million), the Student Athlete Services Fund ($72 million) and the Academic Enhancement Fund (tutoring) ($47 million).

No wonder schools want to move up to D-I. They are getting around $1.5 million each funded by the marketability of power conferences, and they only have to pay a few thousand dollars in dues to be a member. That's a deal that's hard to pass up.

(05-29-2018 03:46 PM)ken d Wrote:  The NCAA reports revenues of about $950 million. Of this total, about $130 million comes from ticket sales, parking, etc for NCAA championship events. That's pretty close to the expenses the NCAA pays for to stage those events. Those expenses would include things like arena rentals, officiating expenses, travel costs for participants, among other things.

So basically, the media contract that produces about $820 million is what is available to be distributed to members through one fund or the other. Only about 20% of that is paid out directly to the participants in the NCAA basketball tournament.

More than 50% is distributed through funds that all D-I members have access to, including those who don't sponsor football.

At the end of the day, though, I suspect that if D-I membership requirements were made more difficult, or if the FBS schools were to break away from the NCAA, they wouldn't see an increase in their share of revenues from the tournament in an order of magnitude that many casual fans might expect.

On a per school basis, the increase for P5 schools would probably be a pretty small percentage of their total revenues.

To me, the number that's hardest to justify is the $150 million or so spent to administer the NCAA functions. I'm betting the only people getting any bang for their buck are the NCAA staff itself. $74 million for "legal, communications and insurance" is hard to fathom. The way the numbers are reported, it's hard to ferret out how much is being spent on compliance. However much it is, I doubt it's worth what the members are paying for it.

Like its members, the NCAA's accounting and reporting seem designed to make it impossible to see where the money goes. That usually means most people wouldn't be happy if they knew the facts, and those doing the reporting would be embarassed if we knew them. That can't be a good thing.

(05-30-2018 12:35 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Sounds like the NCAA administration creates these amorphous funds so they can hand out something to every school to try and keep them satisfied with the NCAA leadership.

Kind of like FIFA using mysterious accounts to give money to every national fútbol association of any size, to generate enough votes for the FIFA president to win re-election.

(05-30-2018 12:35 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Sounds like the NCAA administration creates these amorphous funds so they can hand out something to every school to try and keep them satisfied with the NCAA leadership.

Kind of like FIFA using mysterious accounts to give money to every national fútbol association of any size, to generate enough votes for the FIFA president to win re-election.

(05-30-2018 04:33 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-30-2018 12:35 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Sounds like the NCAA administration creates these amorphous funds so they can hand out something to every school to try and keep them satisfied with the NCAA leadership.

Kind of like FIFA using mysterious accounts to give money to every national fútbol association of any size, to generate enough votes for the FIFA president to win re-election.

And just further develop the idea since I was interrupted.

It really is the same principle it's just that in this case (like most) the membership comes up with the idea.

Can't recall who it was but someone did a great article around the time of the FIFA scandal looking at the FIFA distributions for "youth" soccer and it was ridiculous because nations like England, Scotland, France, Italy, Spain the US, that have very well developed youth programs were pulling in a decent sized piece of the pie that they really didn't need and they were basically just using to give more amenities to U18 and below national teams rather than spread the sport and get nets, balls, and fields in places that struggle to have them because those generally aren't first world issues.

The sports sponsorship and grant-in-aid fund are basically a reward for sponsoring a lot of sports and having big athletic departments to insure that a Florida Gulf Coast or Butler or VCU doesn't go on a big run and have a huge windfall for the next six years.

(05-31-2018 11:06 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(05-30-2018 04:33 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-30-2018 12:35 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Sounds like the NCAA administration creates these amorphous funds so they can hand out something to every school to try and keep them satisfied with the NCAA leadership.

Kind of like FIFA using mysterious accounts to give money to every national fútbol association of any size, to generate enough votes for the FIFA president to win re-election.

And just further develop the idea since I was interrupted.

It really is the same principle it's just that in this case (like most) the membership comes up with the idea.

Can't recall who it was but someone did a great article around the time of the FIFA scandal looking at the FIFA distributions for "youth" soccer and it was ridiculous because nations like England, Scotland, France, Italy, Spain the US, that have very well developed youth programs were pulling in a decent sized piece of the pie that they really didn't need and they were basically just using to give more amenities to U18 and below national teams rather than spread the sport and get nets, balls, and fields in places that struggle to have them because those generally aren't first world issues.

The sports sponsorship and grant-in-aid fund are basically a reward for sponsoring a lot of sports and having big athletic departments to insure that a Florida Gulf Coast or Butler or VCU doesn't go on a big run and have a huge windfall for the next six years.

If the ostensible purpose of this fund was to encourage schools to add more sports, why would most of the money go to the schools that already are sponsoring a lot of them? Or does it?

(05-31-2018 12:21 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-31-2018 11:06 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(05-30-2018 04:33 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-30-2018 12:35 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Sounds like the NCAA administration creates these amorphous funds so they can hand out something to every school to try and keep them satisfied with the NCAA leadership.

Kind of like FIFA using mysterious accounts to give money to every national fútbol association of any size, to generate enough votes for the FIFA president to win re-election.

And just further develop the idea since I was interrupted.

It really is the same principle it's just that in this case (like most) the membership comes up with the idea.

Can't recall who it was but someone did a great article around the time of the FIFA scandal looking at the FIFA distributions for "youth" soccer and it was ridiculous because nations like England, Scotland, France, Italy, Spain the US, that have very well developed youth programs were pulling in a decent sized piece of the pie that they really didn't need and they were basically just using to give more amenities to U18 and below national teams rather than spread the sport and get nets, balls, and fields in places that struggle to have them because those generally aren't first world issues.

The sports sponsorship and grant-in-aid fund are basically a reward for sponsoring a lot of sports and having big athletic departments to insure that a Florida Gulf Coast or Butler or VCU doesn't go on a big run and have a huge windfall for the next six years.

If the ostensible purpose of this fund was to encourage schools to add more sports, why would most of the money go to the schools that already are sponsoring a lot of them? Or does it?

In theory it is a carrot. Offer as many sports and award as many scholies as Stanford and you too can get a decent heap of money.

The extra money will only cover about 20% to 25% of your new sport if you are already at 150 rides, so no Belmont isn't going to be enticed to take on a new sport because they aren't even getting that.

If you are a Sun Belt or MAC or CUSA that needs to add a sport for Title IX, the mitigation is nice because you are already have at least 16 sports and award at least 200 rides.

This is where theory and reality diverge. Theory is it is carrot to add sports, reality is the two funds exist to insure a Gonzaga doesn't get too rich from being good in basketball, without those two funds, the value of a basketball unit would double.

(06-01-2018 07:26 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(05-31-2018 12:21 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-31-2018 11:06 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(05-30-2018 04:33 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-30-2018 12:35 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Sounds like the NCAA administration creates these amorphous funds so they can hand out something to every school to try and keep them satisfied with the NCAA leadership.

Kind of like FIFA using mysterious accounts to give money to every national fútbol association of any size, to generate enough votes for the FIFA president to win re-election.

And just further develop the idea since I was interrupted.

It really is the same principle it's just that in this case (like most) the membership comes up with the idea.

Can't recall who it was but someone did a great article around the time of the FIFA scandal looking at the FIFA distributions for "youth" soccer and it was ridiculous because nations like England, Scotland, France, Italy, Spain the US, that have very well developed youth programs were pulling in a decent sized piece of the pie that they really didn't need and they were basically just using to give more amenities to U18 and below national teams rather than spread the sport and get nets, balls, and fields in places that struggle to have them because those generally aren't first world issues.

The sports sponsorship and grant-in-aid fund are basically a reward for sponsoring a lot of sports and having big athletic departments to insure that a Florida Gulf Coast or Butler or VCU doesn't go on a big run and have a huge windfall for the next six years.

If the ostensible purpose of this fund was to encourage schools to add more sports, why would most of the money go to the schools that already are sponsoring a lot of them? Or does it?

In theory it is a carrot. Offer as many sports and award as many scholies as Stanford and you too can get a decent heap of money.

The extra money will only cover about 20% to 25% of your new sport if you are already at 150 rides, so no Belmont isn't going to be enticed to take on a new sport because they aren't even getting that.

If you are a Sun Belt or MAC or CUSA that needs to add a sport for Title IX, the mitigation is nice because you are already have at least 16 sports and award at least 200 rides.

This is where theory and reality diverge. Theory is it is carrot to add sports, reality is the two funds exist to insure a Gonzaga doesn't get too rich from being good in basketball, without those two funds, the value of a basketball unit would double.

I was with you until your last paragraph. First, there is no vast conspiracy to hold Gonzaga - or anyone else - down. Gonzaga's success is good for the tournament and everybody that benefits from it. Second, if the basketball unit value were to double, it would benefit Gonzaga more than it does the P5 schools, for whom the tournament credits are an insignificant part of their budget. They are a much bigger share of the Zags budget.

(06-01-2018 10:16 AM)ken d Wrote:  So which is it?

Post #7
Don't hold me to it, but my recollection is the sport sponsorship and grant-in-aid funds were a Big 10 proposal to address the surge of revenue produced by the rising value of the basketball tournament.

Post #12
You do understand that the sports sponsorship fund and grant-in-aid funds were created before there was an ESPN2 and there was still a SWC and before the Big East ever sponsored a football game, the Metro still existed and there was no Great Midwest or CUSA or Mountain West?

(06-01-2018 11:43 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(06-01-2018 10:16 AM)ken d Wrote:  So which is it?

Post #7
Don't hold me to it, but my recollection is the sport sponsorship and grant-in-aid funds were a Big 10 proposal to address the surge of revenue produced by the rising value of the basketball tournament.

Post #12
You do understand that the sports sponsorship fund and grant-in-aid funds were created before there was an ESPN2 and there was still a SWC and before the Big East ever sponsored a football game, the Metro still existed and there was no Great Midwest or CUSA or Mountain West?

This isn't nearly as narrow as you are wishing it to be.

Post 12 refutes your claim that the money involved wasn't significant. This came out before the TV money for conferences went through the roof and the Tournament was a significant revenue, you claimed it wasn't.

It was a major conference proposal to get more of the revenue (their fair share of what they were producing for the association) and having the funds tied to scholarships awarded and sports sponsored insured the bulk went to the largest schools. There is no abundance of smaller schools sponsoring 20 sports. It was and is more likely that an ASun or NEC school will run a couple rounds in the NCAA Tournament than it is that they will sponsor 20 sports and award 230 scholarships.

(06-02-2018 11:55 AM)ken d Wrote:  I still haven't heard, nor can I find online, where the money from this fund is going. How much does the P5 get? The G5? FCS? Non-football?

Sure woud be nice to have some transparency about the biggest line item in the NCAA budget.

(06-02-2018 02:26 PM)Renandpat Wrote:  

(06-02-2018 11:55 AM)ken d Wrote:  I still haven't heard, nor can I find online, where the money from this fund is going. How much does the P5 get? The G5? FCS? Non-football?

Sure woud be nice to have some transparency about the biggest line item in the NCAA budget.

You're not going to be able to see the distribution without a NCAA login and password.

(06-02-2018 02:26 PM)Renandpat Wrote:  

(06-02-2018 11:55 AM)ken d Wrote:  I still haven't heard, nor can I find online, where the money from this fund is going. How much does the P5 get? The G5? FCS? Non-football?

Sure woud be nice to have some transparency about the biggest line item in the NCAA budget.

You're not going to be able to see the distribution without a NCAA login and password.

(06-01-2018 12:19 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-01-2018 11:43 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(06-01-2018 10:16 AM)ken d Wrote:  So which is it?

Post #7
Don't hold me to it, but my recollection is the sport sponsorship and grant-in-aid funds were a Big 10 proposal to address the surge of revenue produced by the rising value of the basketball tournament.

Post #12
You do understand that the sports sponsorship fund and grant-in-aid funds were created before there was an ESPN2 and there was still a SWC and before the Big East ever sponsored a football game, the Metro still existed and there was no Great Midwest or CUSA or Mountain West?

This isn't nearly as narrow as you are wishing it to be.

Post 12 refutes your claim that the money involved wasn't significant. This came out before the TV money for conferences went through the roof and the Tournament was a significant revenue, you claimed it wasn't.

It was a major conference proposal to get more of the revenue (their fair share of what they were producing for the association) and having the funds tied to scholarships awarded and sports sponsored insured the bulk went to the largest schools. There is no abundance of smaller schools sponsoring 20 sports. It was and is more likely that an ASun or NEC school will run a couple rounds in the NCAA Tournament than it is that they will sponsor 20 sports and award 230 scholarships.

I didn't claim the money wasn't significant. I said that, relatively speaking, the money involved - that is, the difference between what they now get from the NCAAT compared to what they might get - is more significant to a school like Gonzaga than it is to a P5 school. If you have a budget of $90 million or more, another million or so isn't as important to you as it would be to a school with a $30 million budget.

But, I also genuinely wanted to know. It seems to me that those two statements about the origin of this large fund can't both be true.

And if the bulk of the money is indeed being paid out to the major conferences, then why the complaints about how much of the tournament money the NCAA is hoarding for itself?