Wedge
Moderator
Posts: 19,862
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 964
I Root For: California
Location: IV, V, VI, IX
|
RE: sounds like Idaho's AD was WRONG
(04-10-2013 11:09 PM)arkstfan Wrote: (04-10-2013 11:03 PM)stever20 Wrote: (04-10-2013 10:45 PM)arkstfan Wrote: There's a lot of faulty math here because it is working in a vacuum and not accounting for the entire picture.
There is more to the picture than CFP money.
Let's say Conference A is at 14, B is at 12, and C is at 16
In CFP money A is worth $857,000 per team, B $1 million and C $750,000
But if A averages 2 NCAA units earned per year, B averages 1, and C averages 3 what does that do to the equation?
A is worth $1.09, B is worth $1.14, C is worth $1.07
That's before you inject TV dollars, CFP ranking dollars, and CFP appearance dollars.
But let's back up to that first line which was just CFP dollars the gap between the best per team and worst is equal to selling 600 more tickets in football and basketball per game a reachable number if the worst per team is regionalized and the best isn't. By the time you inject the other factors if you increase ticket sales and cut your travel cost your athletic department has more spendable money even if the amount in the check at the end of the year from the conference is smaller.
What you are saying is extremely misleading. The C conference, which only could be C-USA, isn't going to get 3 units any time in the near future. So they won't have that ability to make up the difference there at all. Right now, there is a difference of 6 units between CUSA and SBC the next 6 years- or 250k per year. 3 of those units are scheduled in 2015. There is little/no difference in SBC, MAC, and CUSA basketball units right now. So CUSA can't/won't make up the difference there at all. Sure, if CUSA was good in basketball that would be different, but the fact of the matter is that they aren't. Likely will be a 1 bid league going forward almost every single year, just like the MAC and the SBC.
No.
What is misleading is everyone running around like chickens with their head cut-off over ONE revenue stream out of many streams (CFP equal share, CFP performance, CFP appearance, NCAA units, conference championship event profits, league TV, school TV, tickets sold, donations secured, sponsorships, merchandise sales, concession sales, merchandise licensing)
And there is a complete ignoring of expenses. If it costs School A $1 million a year to get $1.3 million in league revenue and School B $700,000 to get $1.2 million, who is better off?
1) If you are arguing that a school would save $300,000 every year in travel expenses by playing in a regionally-constricted conference, that's very optimistic. TCU claimed that their travel costs increased by less than that when they moved from CUSA to the MWC, which is a much larger difference in travel than anyone would get by consolidating, say, CUSA and the SBC, or by trying to have large divisions for the few sports where that's workable.
2) League revenue in the "non-contract conferences" is small compared to ticket sales and donations. (Or, if a school's league revenue is anywhere near the same as ticket revenue plus donations, then they are not doing enough to generate their ticket revenue and donations.) IMO, one reason that some schools are moving from CUSA to the AAC is that they hope to increase ticket sales and donations. (It might not work for them, but at least they are trying.) So, if the people making these decisions at the schools are thoughtful, they will give a lot of consideration to whether expanding or switching conferences is a net positive or negative for their own school's ticket sales and donations. If they don't give that a lot of thought, they're not doing right by their school.
|
|