As stated by Wilner http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegespor...more-31671

This is only ESPN/FOX revenue. It does not include PAC network revenue (network did surprisingly generate profits year 1), NCAA BBall money, BCS/playoff money, etc.

* According to the documents, ESPN is a slightly larger rights-holder than Fox (53% to 47%).

Here are the payouts:

2013: $185,000,000 million

2014: $194,250,000 million

2015: $204,540,000 million

2016: $215,060,000 million

2017: $226,140,000 million

2018: $237,780,000 million

2019: $250,020,000 million

2020: $262,900,000 million

2021: $276,420,000 million

2022: $290,660,000 million

2023: $305,620,000 million

2024: $321,340,000 million

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.

So that starts out at $15.4 million per member school this year, and ramps up to top out at $26.8 million per school in 2024. It's good money but not the $20 million per school right from the beginning that a lot of folks have been thinking in terms of. The payout doesn't reach that level until 2019.

(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.

Tell that to Wilner, the OP cut-and-pasted the list from Wilner's column.

(06-18-2013 12:23 AM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  It's good money but not the $20 million per school right from the beginning that a lot of folks have been thinking in terms of.

Who thought that? It's been widely reported that this deal had gradually escalating annual payouts, with less at the beginning and more at the end, and that $250 million per year is the average over 12 years. The Big 12 also has escalating payouts over the life of their ESPN/Fox deal, and not identical payouts for each year of the deal.

(06-18-2013 12:45 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-18-2013 12:23 AM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  It's good money but not the $20 million per school right from the beginning that a lot of folks have been thinking in terms of.

Who thought that? It's been widely reported that this deal had gradually escalating annual payouts, with less at the beginning and more at the end, and that $250 million per year is the average over 12 years.

I wouldn't characterize that aspect of the deal as being "widely reported". Here are five links to articles from major news sources that describe the new Pac-12 TV contract as paying each school $20 million annually and don't mention escalating payouts or the fact that this level won't be reached for the first six years.

(And by the way, I knew the contract was back-loaded, but I learned that from reading message boards, not media reports.)

http://www.businessinsider.com/pac-12-ne...eal-2011-5

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/may/04/...n-20110504

http://seattletimes.com/html/budwithers/...ers04.html

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...better-off

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/...b_3eI56cdU

(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.

You don't want to sit on one side of a conference table and see Larry Scott on the other.....

(06-18-2013 12:45 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-18-2013 12:23 AM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  It's good money but not the $20 million per school right from the beginning that a lot of folks have been thinking in terms of.

Who thought that? It's been widely reported that this deal had gradually escalating annual payouts, with less at the beginning and more at the end, and that $250 million per year is the average over 12 years. The Big 12 also has escalating payouts over the life of their ESPN/Fox deal, and not identical payouts for each year of the deal.

Escalation factor is surprising. I would have expected 3 or 4%, not 5.1%.

Something tells me once the B1G figures their side out, the PAC's either going to come back to the table for B1G-PAC, 14+, or both.

(06-18-2013 01:09 AM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  I wouldn't characterize that aspect of the deal as being "widely reported". Here are five links to articles from major news sources that describe the new Pac-12 TV contract as paying each school $20 million annually and don't mention escalating payouts or the fact that this level won't be reached for the first six years.

(And by the way, I knew the contract was back-loaded, but I learned that from reading message boards, not media reports.)

http://www.businessinsider.com/pac-12-ne...eal-2011-5

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/may/04/...n-20110504

http://seattletimes.com/html/budwithers/...ers04.html

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...better-off

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/...b_3eI56cdU

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

(06-18-2013 11:59 AM)omniorange Wrote:  

(06-18-2013 01:09 AM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  I wouldn't characterize that aspect of the deal as being "widely reported". Here are five links to articles from major news sources that describe the new Pac-12 TV contract as paying each school $20 million annually and don't mention escalating payouts or the fact that this level won't be reached for the first six years.

(And by the way, I knew the contract was back-loaded, but I learned that from reading message boards, not media reports.)

http://www.businessinsider.com/pac-12-ne...eal-2011-5

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/may/04/...n-20110504

http://seattletimes.com/html/budwithers/...ers04.html

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...better-off

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/...b_3eI56cdU

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

+1

(06-18-2013 11:59 AM)omniorange Wrote:  

(06-18-2013 01:09 AM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  I wouldn't characterize that aspect of the deal as being "widely reported". Here are five links to articles from major news sources that describe the new Pac-12 TV contract as paying each school $20 million annually and don't mention escalating payouts or the fact that this level won't be reached for the first six years.

(And by the way, I knew the contract was back-loaded, but I learned that from reading message boards, not media reports.)

http://www.businessinsider.com/pac-12-ne...eal-2011-5

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/may/04/...n-20110504

http://seattletimes.com/html/budwithers/...ers04.html

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...better-off

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/...b_3eI56cdU

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.

(06-18-2013 02:54 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-18-2013 11:59 AM)omniorange Wrote:  

(06-18-2013 01:09 AM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  I wouldn't characterize that aspect of the deal as being "widely reported". Here are five links to articles from major news sources that describe the new Pac-12 TV contract as paying each school $20 million annually and don't mention escalating payouts or the fact that this level won't be reached for the first six years.

(And by the way, I knew the contract was back-loaded, but I learned that from reading message boards, not media reports.)

http://www.businessinsider.com/pac-12-ne...eal-2011-5

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/may/04/...n-20110504

http://seattletimes.com/html/budwithers/...ers04.html

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...better-off

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/...b_3eI56cdU

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).

(06-18-2013 02:54 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-18-2013 11:59 AM)omniorange Wrote:  

(06-18-2013 01:09 AM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  I wouldn't characterize that aspect of the deal as being "widely reported". Here are five links to articles from major news sources that describe the new Pac-12 TV contract as paying each school $20 million annually and don't mention escalating payouts or the fact that this level won't be reached for the first six years.

(And by the way, I knew the contract was back-loaded, but I learned that from reading message boards, not media reports.)

http://www.businessinsider.com/pac-12-ne...eal-2011-5

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/may/04/...n-20110504

http://seattletimes.com/html/budwithers/...ers04.html

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...better-off

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/...b_3eI56cdU

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.

The only points I even contended is that even if the escalation rates were the same the Big 12 would be a little ahead in same-year payout due to a shorter time period being averaged. The later years of the ACC deal would be heaviest and without them the average would be less.

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

(06-18-2013 02:54 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-18-2013 11:59 AM)omniorange Wrote:  

(06-18-2013 01:09 AM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  I wouldn't characterize that aspect of the deal as being "widely reported". Here are five links to articles from major news sources that describe the new Pac-12 TV contract as paying each school $20 million annually and don't mention escalating payouts or the fact that this level won't be reached for the first six years.

(And by the way, I knew the contract was back-loaded, but I learned that from reading message boards, not media reports.)

http://www.businessinsider.com/pac-12-ne...eal-2011-5

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/may/04/...n-20110504

http://seattletimes.com/html/budwithers/...ers04.html

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...better-off

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/...b_3eI56cdU

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.

(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:  

(06-18-2013 01:09 AM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  I wouldn't characterize that aspect of the deal as being "widely reported". Here are five links to articles from major news sources that describe the new Pac-12 TV contract as paying each school $20 million annually and don't mention escalating payouts or the fact that this level won't be reached for the first six years.

(And by the way, I knew the contract was back-loaded, but I learned that from reading message boards, not media reports.)

http://www.businessinsider.com/pac-12-ne...eal-2011-5

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/may/04/...n-20110504

http://seattletimes.com/html/budwithers/...ers04.html

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...better-off

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/...b_3eI56cdU

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.

Each conference basically generates monies via TV contracts; Bowl revenues; and NCAA monies.

That's it. The majority of the money has been from the TV pot.

There is no "super secret slush fund" a conference has to pay off conference expenses.

Cheers,
Neil

(06-18-2013 02:54 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-18-2013 11:59 AM)omniorange Wrote:  

(06-18-2013 01:09 AM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  I wouldn't characterize that aspect of the deal as being "widely reported". Here are five links to articles from major news sources that describe the new Pac-12 TV contract as paying each school $20 million annually and don't mention escalating payouts or the fact that this level won't be reached for the first six years.

(And by the way, I knew the contract was back-loaded, but I learned that from reading message boards, not media reports.)

http://www.businessinsider.com/pac-12-ne...eal-2011-5

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/may/04/...n-20110504

http://seattletimes.com/html/budwithers/...ers04.html

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...better-off

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/...b_3eI56cdU

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.

Actually, no. First, "back-loaded" is an incorrect term. The correct term is graduated payments.

What ACC fans had to deal with back then were the claims by Big 12 posters that their schools would get the $20 million annual money from the start (other than WVU and TCU who would not get a full share until after 4 years).

When it was pointed out to them that all such contracts are structured as graduated payments whereby "the average" comes out at about the middle of the contract period, then they claimed they heard "rumors" the ACC contract was "exceptionally" back-loaded.

As if any conference would allow that to happen when they know how these contracts have been constructed for ages now.

Cheers,
Neil

(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.

(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.

They all do things a little differently. For example, in FSU's "distributions" from the ACC were referee/official's fees in various sports paid by the conference. In the Big 12, the schools pay the conference office for official's fees. As part of their exit fee negotiations, A&M didn't have to pay that their last year, but Missouri did.

(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:  

(06-18-2013 01:09 AM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  I wouldn't characterize that aspect of the deal as being "widely reported". Here are five links to articles from major news sources that describe the new Pac-12 TV contract as paying each school $20 million annually and don't mention escalating payouts or the fact that this level won't be reached for the first six years.

(And by the way, I knew the contract was back-loaded, but I learned that from reading message boards, not media reports.)

http://www.businessinsider.com/pac-12-ne...eal-2011-5

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/may/04/...n-20110504

http://seattletimes.com/html/budwithers/...ers04.html

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...better-off

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/...b_3eI56cdU

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.