(06-18-2013 09:30 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(06-18-2013 03:52 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-18-2013 03:18 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(06-18-2013 02:54 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-18-2013 11:59 AM)omniorange Wrote:  Contracts being back-loaded is well known by most, except apparently the majority of Big 12 posters who were posting on this site from last summer onward. Conferences also reserving some of their TV monies for the costs of operating the conference is also well known by most, except apparently by the majority Big 12 posters who were posting on this from last summer onward.

The articles are simply reporting the average over the lifetime of the contract which is what has always been done. Very few such articles get into the nitty gritty of graduated payments. It's just simpler to report the overall average.

Cheers,
Neil

The Big 12 posters were the ones pointing out back-loading. There were rumors (with no backing and probably not true) that the ACC contract was exceptionally back-loaded.

Many claimed that the ACC had the only back-loaded contract, and almost all ignored the fact that the conference gets a cut of the payout, which is almost always equal to a member schools share. That's important because the conference cut adversely affects smaller conferences more than bigger conferences (in terms of the number of schools in the conference).

I don't think anyone other than the ACC gives the conference a "share." Everyone else funds the conference in different ways.

Basing budgets off of media payouts is the norm (i.e. escalated payouts). I can't find a source to prove that (although I've seen a credible one) so don't believe me if you want, but I'm not sure if there's a conference that doesn't. Regardless, think about it this way: unless you think that the ACC has a substantially higher budget than the rest, it would be impossible for the rest to not more or less de facto do it. The money doesn't just magically appear, so it has to come from somewhere. Whether they expressly do it, or whether they take it out of the general coffers (i.e. once the money has been mixed with bowl money, tourney money, sponsor money, and so on), it still has the same end effect. And, it's cheaper to split something 15.2 ways than 15, 13, or 11 ways.

You're assuming the costs are fixed and that the conference distributes everything excess. When the conference gets a share, that's not necessarily the case.

As for the funding, few conferences make enough in media money to fund their conference offices. They have to fund in other ways.

(06-18-2013 10:25 PM)bullet Wrote:  You're assuming the costs are fixed and that the conference distributes everything excess. When the conference gets a share, that's not necessarily the case.

As for the funding, few conferences make enough in media money to fund their conference offices. They have to fund in other ways.

I'm assuming that the conference makes a budget and allocates funds (i.e. as per the Big XII bylaws) and the funding for that comes from somewhere other than a conference-owner printing press (i.e. they don't counterfeit money). As for you second statement, I'm not sure what to say. The Pac 12 is making $185,000,000 in Tier 1/2 media money this year, and the ACC, SEC< Big XII, and B1G are all roughly in the same ball park. I'm not sure how much you think it costs to run a conference, but I sincerely hope it's less than $185,000,000/yr.

(06-18-2013 08:30 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-18-2013 06:22 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-18-2013 03:52 PM)bullet Wrote:  I don't think anyone other than the ACC gives the conference a "share." Everyone else funds the conference in different ways.

The SEC does. It gives its office an equal share, such that SEC money is divided 15 ways, with the conference office getting one of those slices.

Sounds like a recipe for over-spending.

It does indeed, and one has to wonder that with this huge influx of new playoff money, the SEC schools will think it requires a much larger amount of money to run the conference office. Wouldn't surprise me if the conference office gets a much smaller fixed amount than a full share going forward.

Wilner wrote an article a while back saying the payouts would be smaller the first few years because of startup costs for the Pac12 Network.

(06-18-2013 11:26 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(06-18-2013 10:25 PM)bullet Wrote:  You're assuming the costs are fixed and that the conference distributes everything excess. When the conference gets a share, that's not necessarily the case.

As for the funding, few conferences make enough in media money to fund their conference offices. They have to fund in other ways.

I'm assuming that the conference makes a budget and allocates funds (i.e. as per the Big XII bylaws) and the funding for that comes from somewhere other than a conference-owner printing press (i.e. they don't counterfeit money). As for you second statement, I'm not sure what to say. The Pac 12 is making $185,000,000 in Tier 1/2 media money this year, and the ACC, SEC< Big XII, and B1G are all roughly in the same ball park. I'm not sure how much you think it costs to run a conference, but I sincerely hope it's less than $185,000,000/yr.

There are 31 or 32 division I conferences, not just 5.

(06-19-2013 08:42 AM)CPslograd Wrote:  Wilner wrote an article a while back saying the payouts would be smaller the first few years because of startup costs for the Pac12 Network.

...and it sounds like the per-school cut from network revenue won't be much for some time, either.

I don't know how they get that $30m number once all are receiving full shares with the bowl, playoff, and tournament money. Sounds more like an average for schools who routinely contribute to those pots get the over and those who don't the under.

This conference needs to get its basketball back on track AND better football performance from the bottom of the league. Utah just has to do SOMETHING.

(06-17-2013 11:56 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  If you're going to type out all the zeros, there's no need to add the million after each amount. Unless you are trying to say each year the PAC gets paid in the trillions.

(06-19-2013 08:49 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-18-2013 11:26 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(06-18-2013 10:25 PM)bullet Wrote:  You're assuming the costs are fixed and that the conference distributes everything excess. When the conference gets a share, that's not necessarily the case.

As for the funding, few conferences make enough in media money to fund their conference offices. They have to fund in other ways.

I'm assuming that the conference makes a budget and allocates funds (i.e. as per the Big XII bylaws) and the funding for that comes from somewhere other than a conference-owner printing press (i.e. they don't counterfeit money). As for you second statement, I'm not sure what to say. The Pac 12 is making $185,000,000 in Tier 1/2 media money this year, and the ACC, SEC< Big XII, and B1G are all roughly in the same ball park. I'm not sure how much you think it costs to run a conference, but I sincerely hope it's less than $185,000,000/yr.

There are 31 or 32 division I conferences, not just 5.

And the bulk of those conferences are running on a shoe-string budget with commissioners not getting paid what P5 commissioners being paid and with staffs half the size.

Again, as NZM points out. None of those conferences are printing money. They are paying them out of the combination of their media deal, the monies they make on FBS football (if they participate) and NCAA monies.

Do you honestly believe the cost of running a P5 conference is somehow significantly less for one conference such as the Pac-12 than it is for another such as the Big Ten?

Cheers,
Neil

(06-19-2013 04:52 PM)omniorange Wrote:  Do you honestly believe the cost of running a P5 conference is somehow significantly less for one conference such as the Pac-12 than it is for another such as the Big Ten?

That would depend on staff salaries. I think the variance would come mostly from the salaries of the commissioner and the next two levels below the commissioner in the organizational structure. It looks like each of the five conference offices have about the same number of employees (excluding administrative assistants, which might not be fully listed on some of these lists).

http://www.theacc.com/this-is/staff-directory.html

http://www.bigten.org/school-bio/big10-staff.html

http://www.big12sports.com/ViewArticle.d...ID=1514843

http://pac-12.com/AboutPac-12Conference/...ctory.aspx

http://www.secdigitalnetwork.com/SECSPOR...Staff.aspx

(06-19-2013 09:14 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(06-19-2013 08:42 AM)CPslograd Wrote:  Wilner wrote an article a while back saying the payouts would be smaller the first few years because of startup costs for the Pac12 Network.

...and it sounds like the per-school cut from network revenue won't be much for some time, either.

I don't know how they get that $30m number once all are receiving full shares with the bowl, playoff, and tournament money. Sounds more like an average for schools who routinely contribute to those pots get the over and those who don't the under.

This conference needs to get its basketball back on track AND better football performance from the bottom of the league. Utah just has to do SOMETHING.

I don't think Utah has much impact on the value of the PacTen one way or the other.

And I think the schools are and will make plenty of money. I don't understand the crappy basketball attendance. Some of that is because of performance but something else is causing it too. No clue what it is.

(06-19-2013 04:52 PM)omniorange Wrote:  Do you honestly believe the cost of running a P5 conference is somehow significantly less for one conference such as the Pac-12 than it is for another such as the Big Ten?

Cheers,
Neil

Let's flip the question around. How much more can it cost to run the PAC-12 than it does to run the Mountain West Conference?

Some of the expenses are going to be pretty similar--organizing tournaments and CCGs, paying game officials, some other stuff.

Some of the expenses are going to be very different--I'm sure Larry Scott and his crew are getting paid a lot more than Craig "Hair" Thompson and his crew. I'd expect that the PAC has a much bigger advertising and promotion budget than the MWC does. I have no idea if Chris Bevilacqua and his media consultants got a flat fee or a small percentage of the media deal.

I don't think the PACnet startup costs are coming out of the "conference office" budget--I'm pretty sure they come off the top of the "media revenues" number.

(06-23-2013 02:16 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(06-19-2013 04:52 PM)omniorange Wrote:  Do you honestly believe the cost of running a P5 conference is somehow significantly less for one conference such as the Pac-12 than it is for another such as the Big Ten?

Cheers,
Neil

Let's flip the question around. How much more can it cost to run the PAC-12 than it does to run the Mountain West Conference?

Some of the expenses are going to be pretty similar--organizing tournaments and CCGs, paying game officials, some other stuff.

Some of the expenses are going to be very different--I'm sure Larry Scott and his crew are getting paid a lot more than Craig "Hair" Thompson and his crew. I'd expect that the PAC has a much bigger advertising and promotion budget than the MWC does. I have no idea if Chris Bevilacqua and his media consultants got a flat fee or a small percentage of the media deal.

I don't think the PACnet startup costs are coming out of the "conference office" budget--I'm pretty sure they come off the top of the "media revenues" number.

I suggest you may want to go to the Mountain West site and see that they employ about half the staff of a P5 conference.

Cheers,
Neil

(06-23-2013 02:16 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(06-19-2013 04:52 PM)omniorange Wrote:  Do you honestly believe the cost of running a P5 conference is somehow significantly less for one conference such as the Pac-12 than it is for another such as the Big Ten?

Cheers,
Neil

Let's flip the question around. How much more can it cost to run the PAC-12 than it does to run the Mountain West Conference?

Some of the expenses are going to be pretty similar--organizing tournaments and CCGs, paying game officials, some other stuff.

Some of the expenses are going to be very different--I'm sure Larry Scott and his crew are getting paid a lot more than Craig "Hair" Thompson and his crew. I'd expect that the PAC has a much bigger advertising and promotion budget than the MWC does. I have no idea if Chris Bevilacqua and his media consultants got a flat fee or a small percentage of the media deal.

I don't think the PACnet startup costs are coming out of the "conference office" budget--I'm pretty sure they come off the top of the "media revenues" number.

Based on what I've seen about the 2011-12 distribution and the projected 2012-13 distribution, PTN startup costs were probably taken out of 2012-13 conference revenues before the distributions to the members.

(06-23-2013 01:00 PM)CPslograd Wrote:  I don't think Utah has much impact on the value of the PacTen one way or the other.

And I think the schools are and will make plenty of money. I don't understand the crappy basketball attendance. Some of that is because of performance but something else is causing it too. No clue what it is.

I don't know. More than half that league isn't deep in terms of basketball legacy. Even a program like Oregon State...once a great program...hasn't been to a tournament in over 20 years. And who knows if Utah's got what it takes to find (and keep) another Majerus-type. You combine some down years plus those scheduling games some of these schools pull, and the committee will keep punishing them like they did two seasons ago, giving only two bids and both being 10 or higher. Good luck making money past the opening round.

For football, yeah, the parity is good...can they get over .500? Didn't they fall short one team to cover all their tie-in's a few years back?

I don't think the PAC is really hurting...they're just not running at optimal levels.

(06-23-2013 07:58 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(06-23-2013 01:00 PM)CPslograd Wrote:  I don't think Utah has much impact on the value of the PacTen one way or the other.

And I think the schools are and will make plenty of money. I don't understand the crappy basketball attendance. Some of that is because of performance but something else is causing it too. No clue what it is.

I don't know. More than half that league isn't deep in terms of basketball legacy. Even a program like Oregon State...once a great program...hasn't been to a tournament in over 20 years. And who knows if Utah's got what it takes to find (and keep) another Majerus-type. You combine some down years plus those scheduling games some of these schools pull, and the committee will keep punishing them like they did two seasons ago, giving only two bids and both being 10 or higher. Good luck making money past the opening round.

For football, yeah, the parity is good...can they get over .500? Didn't they fall short one team to cover all their tie-in's a few years back?

I don't think the PAC is really hurting...they're just not running at optimal levels.

Coaching was upgraded with Krystkoviak being the first solid hire since Majerus. Dennis Erickson is also the first solid offensive coach since Urban left. Consistently hemorrhaging quality assistants has stopped and coaching and recruiting are on the upswing. Facilities are finally reaching a competitive level with new basketball facilities underway and football facilities to be completed next month. Still a long way to go but at least the people are in place and the funding is starting to roll in.

http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=ugcpy6EXk...gcpy6EXkRs