https://www.seccountry.com/sec/sec-easil...16-revenue

Read this carefully to catch just how much of a difference it really is.

(05-20-2017 10:08 PM)JRsec Wrote:  https://www.seccountry.com/sec/sec-easil...16-revenue

Read this carefully to catch just how much of a difference it really is.

Holy crap. Everyone concentrates on the possible emergence of a tweeter conference within the G5. How about a P1 and 4 tweeners followed with the G5 below them. At least the money follows the overall results on the field. SEC is king of both.

P1>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>G9

The PAC 12 is #2? That is a surprise.

(05-20-2017 11:41 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  The PAC 12 is #2? That is a surprise.

The PAC is actually in much better position than folks realize. They could cut out FOX and ESPN in a deal with Amazon and pick up generous % of the ad revenue as well as distribution fees. If they pick up the on field and court performance I think they will eventually out pace the Big 10.

The ACC will remain an unknown quantity for about 4 years but I expect them to play some catch up as well.

If you are going to own your own network the only way to make it pay is to cut out the middle man. The PAC is looking up because of this.

If you are not going to do that the best thing you can do is cut out all overhead and simply get a 50/50 split of NET profits. That's what the SEC does. It's also what the ACC will be doing.

The worst thing you can do is to have half of your equity in a model that you cannot cut the middle man out of. That's the Big 10. If they sell out the BTN in 6 years they can easily transition to the SEC model. If they have the means they should buy back the 50.1% that FOX has and cut out the middle man.

(05-20-2017 11:50 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-20-2017 11:41 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  The PAC 12 is #2? That is a surprise.

The PAC is actually in much better position than folks realize. They could cut out FOX and ESPN in a deal with Amazon and pick up generous % of the ad revenue as well as distribution fees. If they pick up the on field and court performance I think they will eventually out pace the Big 10.

The ACC will remain an unknown quantity for about 4 years but I expect them to play some catch up as well.

If you are going to own your own network the only way to make it pay is to cut out the middle man. The PAC is looking up because of this.

If you are not going to do that the best thing you can do is cut out all overhead and simply get a 50/50 split of NET profits. That's what the SEC does. It's also what the ACC will be doing.

The worst thing you can do is to have half of your equity in a model that you cannot cut the middle man out of. That's the Big 10. If they sell out the BTN in 6 years they can easily transition to the SEC model. If they have the means they should buy back the 50.1% that FOX has and cut out the middle man.

Fox had the chance to use BTN stock to boost their bid for Big 10 rights and didn't, so I don't see any change in BTN ownership.

(05-20-2017 11:50 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-20-2017 11:41 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  The PAC 12 is #2? That is a surprise.

The PAC is actually in much better position than folks realize. They could cut out FOX and ESPN in a deal with Amazon and pick up generous % of the ad revenue as well as distribution fees. If they pick up the on field and court performance I think they will eventually out pace the Big 10.

The ACC will remain an unknown quantity for about 4 years but I expect them to play some catch up as well.

If you are going to own your own network the only way to make it pay is to cut out the middle man. The PAC is looking up because of this.

If you are not going to do that the best thing you can do is cut out all overhead and simply get a 50/50 split of NET profits. That's what the SEC does. It's also what the ACC will be doing.

The worst thing you can do is to have half of your equity in a model that you cannot cut the middle man out of. That's the Big 10. If they sell out the BTN in 6 years they can easily transition to the SEC model. If they have the means they should buy back the 50.1% that FOX has and cut out the middle man.

Interesting. Your buddy Steve the Alabama fan mocked the PAC 12 for owning their network outright. Said it was a bad thing. Can't wait to bump that!!!!

(05-20-2017 11:23 PM)otown Wrote:  At least the money follows the overall results on the field. SEC is king of both.

Who's the reigning national champions in the two revenue sports?

Must be a lot of fun to gloat JRsec, time to take the price tag off that new hat you got...

(05-21-2017 08:20 AM)JHS55 Wrote:  Must be a lot of fun to gloat JRsec, time to take the price tag off that new hat you got...

JR is gloating now because he knows next year that tidal wave of new B1G money is going to take that opportunity away real quick, LOL.

The Big 12 falls behind because they have only 10 teams. I think this also includes ticket sales.

For football? BYU, East Carolina, UCF, USF, Boise State, Temple, Memphis, Navy, Houston and Army are the top performance.

Basketball, it could be the top teams like Wichita State.

If the PAC 12 did expand by 4, and none of them are Big 12? I think Boise State, San Diego State, Houston and maybe New Mexico or Colorado State could be there which could help boast them with more revenue. Boise State and Houston could do that with football.

Big 12 football is like third conference, but this shows the overall product of all sports.
That means if they go to 6? They need to look at all sports.
BYU and Air Force
Houston is out. So, Memphis, Cincinnati, UCF, USF, UConn. and East Carolina which could boast their ticket sales for both football and basketball.
SEC might want to pull away, but who do they try to grab? Toledo? Temple? Old Dominion? Appalachian State?
Would the ACC grab Navy and Notre Dame to go 16?
Big 10 is stuck with both ACC and Big 12 are locked in GORs. Would they go to two AAU schools not in P5 conference on the east coast like Stony Brook and Buffalo, or do they go with UMass. on the east and a North Dakota State on the west? (North Dakota State fans seem to be loyal to their team and travel.)

(05-20-2017 11:50 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-20-2017 11:41 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  The PAC 12 is #2? That is a surprise.

The PAC is actually in much better position than folks realize. They could cut out FOX and ESPN in a deal with Amazon and pick up generous % of the ad revenue as well as distribution fees. If they pick up the on field and court performance I think they will eventually out pace the Big 10.

The ACC will remain an unknown quantity for about 4 years but I expect them to play some catch up as well.

If you are going to own your own network the only way to make it pay is to cut out the middle man. The PAC is looking up because of this.

If you are not going to do that the best thing you can do is cut out all overhead and simply get a 50/50 split of NET profits. That's what the SEC does. It's also what the ACC will be doing.

The worst thing you can do is to have half of your equity in a model that you cannot cut the middle man out of. That's the Big 10. If they sell out the BTN in 6 years they can easily transition to the SEC model. If they have the means they should buy back the 50.1% that FOX has and cut out the middle man.

The Pac 12 will have a good model when they get better distribution and higher revenues to offset their $100M/year in expenses related to the network. Until then not so much.

(05-20-2017 11:41 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  The PAC 12 is #2? That is a surprise.

It is a surprise but will it stay that way?

If it does that makes PAC expansion less feasible.

Per school numbers:

SEC: 45.6 million
PAC: 40.7 million
B1G: 34.5 million
B12: 31.3 million
ACC: 24.9 million

The money includes Media/TV, CFP and NCAA money. It's all roughly x10 times what the G5 conferences are making.

The obvious expansion if I'm looking at the numbers is Oklahoma/Florida State to the SEC. Kansas/Virginia to the B1G is another good one.

(05-21-2017 08:34 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  The Big 12 falls behind because they have only 10 teams. I think this also includes ticket sales.

But ... "falling behind" in total revenue only matters to the extent that it means you are falling behind in per-school money, which is what matters.

Bottom line is that the SEC, B1G, and ACC have to make 40% more gross revenue than the Big 12, because they have 40% more mouths to feed. So far, the first two are succeeding at that, and then some, but the ACC isn't.

Honest question: What's the point of extra money beyond a certain point? Does it really make the team any better? Most FBS programs either don't make a profit because they can't - or because they often don't even want to.

(05-21-2017 10:04 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-21-2017 08:34 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  The Big 12 falls behind because they have only 10 teams. I think this also includes ticket sales.

But ... "falling behind" in total revenue only matters to the extent that it means you are falling behind in per-school money, which is what matters.

Bottom line is that the SEC, B1G, and ACC have to make 40% more gross revenue than the Big 12, because they have 40% more mouths to feed. So far, the first two are succeeding at that, and then some, but the ACC isn't.

The bottom line for the ACC is that they are having issues selling tickets for some schools to even make up the differences. Duke and Wake Forest have stadiums that are not really considered P5 standards, and they are behind on that department. Some of the schools at times do not even have 50% of the stadium filled. TV revenue will not be there for a long time. You may have to look at schools who have a large number of fans seating in the seats like Boise State is like even for average each year. No big jumps, and no big drop offs. ACC is kinda spread too far out if you include Notre Dame. Big 10 is as well. Big 12 have one school that is way outside of the footprint, and PAC 12 do not have eastern schools to help Colorado and Utah.

(05-21-2017 11:51 AM)oliveandblue Wrote:  Honest question: What's the point of extra money beyond a certain point? Does it really make the team any better? Most FBS programs either don't make a profit because they can't - or because they often don't even want to.

The point is eventually the extra profit will have to be diverted back to the main campus. There are too many appropriations cuts both at the Federal and State levels with regards to higher ed for the sports revenue. Eventually sports revenue will have to make up for those cuts. So the more a conference can earn and distance itself from its competition the faster we know the baseline for athletic budgeting and the faster we can start putting that money in places where it does more good than just entertainment.

I know people thing that is impossible right now, but it's coming.

Revenue is a meaningless number without having the expenses too.

Pac12 counts all the revenue of their network because it is wholly owned. All the money that comes in isn't profit. They have to pay the expenses of running the network from some of that revenue.

With the varying ownership models between conferences, gross revenue is a pretty meaningless measure. It would be useful comparing revenue increases year to year within a given conference.

(05-21-2017 11:51 AM)oliveandblue Wrote:  Honest question: What's the point of extra money beyond a certain point? Does it really make the team any better? Most FBS programs either don't make a profit because they can't - or because they often don't even want to.

They can divert the excess to non revenue sports and make those a chest thumping money grab the same as football and basketball are now. For the good of the kids of course. Goes without saying. Etc.