(06-03-2018 11:28 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(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?

I'm not sure why you don't see those as compatible.

There is no conflict in wanting to insure the biggest most invested leagues get extra money that isn't tied to basketball performance.

In 2012 Grant-in-aid was more than $1 million per Big 10 school and that was when a million bucks was more than 1% for everyone except Michigan, Ohio State and Penn State.

I think what we have here is a failure to communicate. I don't think there is any conflict in those things, and I'm not sure why you would think that I do. I had thought that your comment in Post #12 was meant to refute a comment someone made in Post #7, until I realized you had made both posts.

My confusion is that post #7 appears to refer to a recent initiative by the Big Ten and post #12 appears to suggest that this fund was created a generation ago, long before the surge in tournament revenue.

I started this thread because I have not been able find information about how the biggest source of funds for the NCAA Division -I is allocated among member schools. I keep reading about how P5 conferences might be motivated to break away from the NCAA because they aren't getting an appropriate share of those funds. I was hoping to find out how much they could improve their financial situation by breaking away.

I still don't know much more than when I started. But I'm leaning in the direction that the answer is not nearly as much as I might have thought.

(06-04-2018 08:05 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-03-2018 11:28 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(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?

I'm not sure why you don't see those as compatible.

There is no conflict in wanting to insure the biggest most invested leagues get extra money that isn't tied to basketball performance.

In 2012 Grant-in-aid was more than $1 million per Big 10 school and that was when a million bucks was more than 1% for everyone except Michigan, Ohio State and Penn State.

I think what we have here is a failure to communicate. I don't think there is any conflict in those things, and I'm not sure why you would think that I do. I had thought that your comment in Post #12 was meant to refute a comment someone made in Post #7, until I realized you had made both posts.

My confusion is that post #7 appears to refer to a recent initiative by the Big Ten and post #12 appears to suggest that this fund was created a generation ago, long before the surge in tournament revenue.

I started this thread because I have not been able find information about how the biggest source of funds for the NCAA Division -I is allocated among member schools. I keep reading about how P5 conferences might be motivated to break away from the NCAA because they aren't getting an appropriate share of those funds. I was hoping to find out how much they could improve their financial situation by breaking away.

I still don't know much more than when I started. But I'm leaning in the direction that the answer is not nearly as much as I might have thought.

No it was an older thing. When any outside money was prized. The hoops money at the time was rising faster than conference TV money so it was the bank to go after.

The power leagues (and I'm fairly certain it was Big 10 that introduced) wanted to get a bigger cut but do so in a way that didn't fluctuate like the basketball revenue and in a way that rewarded a comprehensive athletic department.

(06-04-2018 09:57 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(06-04-2018 08:05 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-03-2018 11:28 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(06-01-2018 12:19 PM)ken d Wrote:  

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

I'm not sure why you don't see those as compatible.

There is no conflict in wanting to insure the biggest most invested leagues get extra money that isn't tied to basketball performance.

In 2012 Grant-in-aid was more than $1 million per Big 10 school and that was when a million bucks was more than 1% for everyone except Michigan, Ohio State and Penn State.

I think what we have here is a failure to communicate. I don't think there is any conflict in those things, and I'm not sure why you would think that I do. I had thought that your comment in Post #12 was meant to refute a comment someone made in Post #7, until I realized you had made both posts.

My confusion is that post #7 appears to refer to a recent initiative by the Big Ten and post #12 appears to suggest that this fund was created a generation ago, long before the surge in tournament revenue.

I started this thread because I have not been able find information about how the biggest source of funds for the NCAA Division -I is allocated among member schools. I keep reading about how P5 conferences might be motivated to break away from the NCAA because they aren't getting an appropriate share of those funds. I was hoping to find out how much they could improve their financial situation by breaking away.

I still don't know much more than when I started. But I'm leaning in the direction that the answer is not nearly as much as I might have thought.

No it was an older thing. When any outside money was prized. The hoops money at the time was rising faster than conference TV money so it was the bank to go after.

The power leagues (and I'm fairly certain it was Big 10 that introduced) wanted to get a bigger cut but do so in a way that didn't fluctuate like the basketball revenue and in a way that rewarded a comprehensive athletic department.

When you read what the NCAA says about this fund, you come away with the impression that its purpose is to encourage poorer schools to add sports, rather than to reward the bigger ones for sponsoring a lot of programs already. I can understand the PR reason for giving this impression.

I notice that the Equity in Athletics Act doesn't seem as concerned about how many scholarships a school awards as it does about how many sports they sponsor and how many athletes participate (by gender). Does Title IX address equity in scholarships rather than just participation opportunities?