Attached is my spreadsheet calculating the estimated distributions under the 2019 NCAA Basketball Fund, the share of the NCAA revenues distributed based on tournament success.
Critically, it appears that the NCAA has already implemented the proposed reduction in the Basketball Fund relating to the 2020 implementation of the Academic Achievement Fund. In particular, in 2017, as reported in the NCAA Revenue Distribution Plan, the Basketball Fund was reduced to $160 million from the previously scheduled $210 million. https://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files...170426.pdf
Extrapolating from the actual distribution of $160 million in 2017 to the previously announced and approved Basketball Fund distribution of $169 million in 2020, I estimate that the distribution for 2019 will be $166 million, which translates into $210,000 per unit.
For the fourth year in a row, the ACC has earned the most units, 21. The Big 12 was second with 19. Full information for all conferences is in the attached spreadsheet.
(This post was last modified: 03-26-2018 07:47 AM by orangefan.)
Was crunching numbers on this tournament’s payouts yesterday. This is golden. Is the Academic Achievement Fund per team/league payouts likely one we’ll never find out?
1) The B1G and AAC need to have big tourneys next year or stand to take hits, as they earned 20 and 19 credits respectively back in 2013, and IIRC, those credits will roll off.
The AAC is in for a massive hit, as after that 19-credit 2013 (when it was still effectively the Big East), AAC credits plunge to 10 the next year, and are no greater than 5 the following four years. The B1G is good enough to conceivably have a 20-credit year, which would negate the 2013 roll off. The AAC is extremely unlikely to approach 19 credits.
2) Your chart shows how relatively trivial hoops credits are for the P5 leagues. E.g., the ACC has the most credits, 107, but this amounts to just $1.5m per school.
The worst P5 over the same time, the PAC, with 64 credits, still gets $1.1m per school, just $400k less.
Sure, as Michael Jordan once said, "a million bucks is a million bucks", so no P5 conference is volunteering to forego their share. But in the context of $30m a year media deals, that's almost a rounding error.
It shows why no P5 will ever add a school strictly for its basketball value, no matter how good at making deep runs in the tourney it is (this speaks to those who think that if the Big 12 dissolved, Kansas would be sought after). You can't make up football-money deficits vis-a-vis another Power conference by dominating the Big Dance.
(This post was last modified: 03-25-2018 11:09 PM by quo vadis.)
1) The B1G and AAC need to have big tourneys next year or stand to take hits, as they earned 20 and 19 credits respectively back in 2013, and IIRC, those credits will roll off.
The AAC is in for a massive hit, as after that 19-credit 2013 (when it was still effectively the Big East), AAC credits plunge to 10 the next year, and are no greater than 5 the following four years. The B1G is good enough to conceivably have a 20-credit year, which would negate the 2013 roll off. The AAC is extremely unlikely to approach 19 credits.
2) Your chart shows how relatively trivial hoops credits are for the P5 leagues. E.g., the ACC has the most credits, 107, but this amounts to just $1.5m per school.
The worst P5 over the same time, the PAC, with 64 credits, still gets $1.1m per school, just $400k less.
Sure, as Michael Jordan once said, "a million bucks is a million bucks", so no P5 conference is volunteering to forego their share. But in the context of $30m a year media deals, that's almost a rounding error.
It shows why no P5 will ever add a school strictly for its basketball value, no matter how good at making deep runs in the tourney it is (this speaks to those who think that if the Big 12 dissolved, Kansas would be sought after). You can't make up football-money deficits vis-a-vis another Power conference by dominating the Big Dance.
Very true. However, I do think there is value in basketball blue-bloods to SOME P5 leagues because they can help sell conference network subscriptions. The league in the best position to monetize this is probably the Big Ten, though you'd have to ask how saturated their market is already. The ACC and SEC might be able to monetize them as well, but probably not for the Pac-12 or Big XII.
(03-25-2018 09:32 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote: Was crunching numbers on this tournament’s payouts yesterday. This is golden. Is the Academic Achievement Fund per team/league payouts likely one we’ll never find out?
The amounts paid out will be disclosed. Here is how the NCAA describes it:
Quote:Each school can earn one academic achievement unit per year if its student-athletes meet at least one of the following requirements:
- Earn an overall, single-year, all-sport Academic Progress Rate of 985 or higher.
- Earn an overall all-sport Graduation Success Rate of 90 percent or higher.
- Earn a federal graduation rate that is at least 13 percentage points higher than the federal graduation rate of the student body at that school.
Money will be distributed to the conferences with no restriction on how it is spent.
Orange, great work on gathering the data and putting into a spreadsheet. Much appreciated.
In addition to the long-term concerns for AAC basketball, credit-wise, the other conference soon to be in major trouble is the WCC. Once Gonzaga leaves, their ability to sustain deep tournament runs leave as well. The conference's deepest recent runs, other than Gonzaga, are St. Mary's and BYU (Sweet 16's in 2010, 2011). I'm not sure they have the program power to have a team rise up and take the torch, so-to-speak. The MWC's credits will surely go up moving forward.
(03-26-2018 10:28 AM)stever20 Wrote: 1 thing that we see with units is how getting teams in the tourney isn't necessarily it in terms of getting units.
SEC had 16 units both last year and this year. This despite the fact they had 8 teams in the tourney this year to only 5 last year.
Yes, getting one team in that wins a game is essentially equal to getting two teams in both of whom lose their opening game. You get credits for advancing within your region.
I think a classic example this year is the Big Ten. Sure if Michigan had lost to Nebraska, that might have helped Nebraska get in the tourney. But Michigan would have been like a 6 or 7 seed instead of a 3 seed. So its questionable if the conference would have gotten 5 units like they would wind up getting just from Michigan.
Too often IMO folks focus just on how many teams get in the tourney.
(03-26-2018 11:02 AM)stever20 Wrote: I think a classic example this year is the Big Ten. Sure if Michigan had lost to Nebraska, that might have helped Nebraska get in the tourney. But Michigan would have been like a 6 or 7 seed instead of a 3 seed. So its questionable if the conference would have gotten 5 units like they would wind up getting just from Michigan.
Too often IMO folks focus just on how many teams get in the tourney.
Well, let's face it, most hoops fans know little about these credits and less about how they are earned. I certainly couldn't have generated the table that Orange did. This is obscure stuff. I agree that the media should pay more attention to them because especially for the G5, the dollars do matter.
In contrast, "number of teams in" is a high-profile thing, and is widely-regarded among fans and the media as an indicator of conference strength and status. It's a pecking-order/bragging rights thing.
As those things are arguably more valuable in terms of brand image than the actual credit dollars, it makes a certain amount of sense to focus on "teams in".
That said, fans do focus on credits even if they don't realize it, because we definitely do look at how a conference does in the tournament, not just how many get in. Today, the ACC and SEC are catching flak for getting 9 and 8 teams in respectively but zero into the Final 4. There is a focus on how many teams advance to each round, and conferences that over- or under- perform compared to the # of teams in and their seedings get praised or scolded.
(This post was last modified: 03-26-2018 11:24 AM by quo vadis.)
(03-26-2018 11:02 AM)stever20 Wrote: I think a classic example this year is the Big Ten. Sure if Michigan had lost to Nebraska, that might have helped Nebraska get in the tourney. But Michigan would have been like a 6 or 7 seed instead of a 3 seed. So its questionable if the conference would have gotten 5 units like they would wind up getting just from Michigan.
Too often IMO folks focus just on how many teams get in the tourney.
Well, let's face it, most hoops fans know little about these credits and less about how they are earned. I certainly couldn't have generated the table that Orange did. This is obscure stuff. I agree that the media should pay more attention to them because especially for the G5, the dollars do matter.
In contrast, "number of teams in" is a high-profile thing, and is widely-regarded among fans and the media as an indicator of conference strength and status. It's a pecking-order/bragging rights thing.
As those things are arguably more valuable in terms of brand image than the actual credit dollars, it makes a certain amount of sense to focus on "teams in".
That said, fans do focus on credits even if they don't realize it, because we definitely do look at how a conference does in the tournament, not just how many get in. Today, the ACC and SEC are catching flak for getting 9 and 8 teams in respectively but zero into the Final 4. There is a focus on how many teams advance to each round, and conferences that over- or under- perform compared to the # of teams in and their seedings get praised or scolded.
A couple of comments. First, I've been tracking this for over ten years, so it's just a matter of updating my spreadsheet annually. I do need to research what the payouts will be, as they change occasionally with new TV contracts or other decisions of the NCAA.
As far as the SEC or ACC taking flak for not having teams reach the Final Four, that probably does not matter from year to year that much, but does over time. The more relevant factor is the win loss record of teams invited to the tournament. Winning is proof that the invitations were legit. The ACC was 12-9 this year, the SEC 8-8. In both instances the teams invited, on average, won a game or more. When you see losing conference records, it may indicate that those conferences are getting to many invites. High winning percentages may suggest that those conferences are not getting enough invites.
(This post was last modified: 03-26-2018 04:46 PM by orangefan.)
/
2019 NCAA Basketball Fund
