(02-01-2019 10:38 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-01-2019 10:34 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  

(02-01-2019 07:26 PM)JRsec Wrote:  These figures listed as 2018 are really for the 2017-8 Season. So for comparison purposes I'll list these as 2017 as compared to the previous year which were for the season beginning in 2016.

Big 10 Total 2016: 5,820,481,000
Big 10 Total 2017: 5,389,814,258
Difference of: -$430,666,792

Big 10 per team Avg 2016: 415,748,643
Big 10 per team Avg 2017: 384,986,733
Difference of: -$30,761,910



Big 12 Total 2016: 3,764,333,000
Big 12 Total 2017: 3,537,219,087
Difference of: -$227,113,913

Big 12 per team Avg 2016: 376,433,300
Big 12 per team Avg 2017: 353,721,909
Difference of: -$22,711,391



SEC Total 2017: 7,491,918,011
SEC Total 2016: 7,327,830,000
Difference of: +$164,088,011

SEC per team Avg 2017: 535,137,001
SEC per team Avg 2016: 523,416,428
Difference of: +$11,720,573



PAC Total 2016: 3,045,197,000
PAC Total 2017: 3,008,222,679
Difference of: -$36,974,321

PAC per team Avg 2016: 253,766,417
PAC per team Avg 2017: 250,685,223
Difference of: -$3,081,194



ACC Total 2016: 2,533,375,000
ACC Total 2017: 2,378,969,826
Difference of: -$154,405,974

ACC per team Avg 2016: 182,383,929
ACC per team Avg 2017: 169,926,416
Difference of: -$12,457,513



I think it is significant that among the P5 football was devalued in its economic impact upon the regions of 4 of the P5 conferences in a year over year evaluation by the WSJ. It will be interesting to see if this trend continues when 2018 valuations are released this time next year.

I think it bodes well for the SEC that in such a broad trend our numbers actually improved.

I noticed that for each conference you listed 2016 first then 2017 except the SEC you listed 2017 first. Are the numbers matched up with the right years?

Duh? You subtract the lesser from the greater to get the difference. The SEC was valued higher in 2017 than 2016 so 2016 is subtracted from 2017 to get the increase. All of the others were valued less in 2017 than in 2016 so you subtract 2017 from 2016 to get the NET loss in value.

There was more than one way to interpret your method of the post - chronological order or mathematical order. Just double-checking. Thanks