Pac-12 revenue deficit (relative to SEC, Big Ten) is real, and it’s spectacular
Interesting article regarding the comparitive financial health of the conferneces.
2016 (actual)
SEC: $40.5 million
Big Ten: $34.8 million
Pac-12: $28.7 million
Big 12: $28.45 million
(The ACC has not reported FY16.)
2017 (projected)
SEC: $44 million
... (see article)
2018 (projected)
SEC: $45+ million
... (see article)
Conclusion:
Seven years of a $12+ million per year deficit for Pac-12 schools equates to an $84 million per school disparity, through the current Tier 1 deal, relative to schools in the SEC and Big Ten.
And $84 million per school for a 12-team conference is a $1 billion deficit.
http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/05/18/college-hotline-the-pac-12-revenu…
So my question is, "Jim, why are we #2???"
Because conference needz moar Rutgers.
Well, between the two things listed in the image, we can only hope Delany added Rutgers for the comedy. Between the two things listed actually, we better hope he added them for the comedy - the other things makes me think about Delany in a manner which is even creepier than before.
Well, I was laughing when Rutgers couldn't stop us from running up the middle for 45-yard touchdowns in a futile attempt to not run up the score, but I could kinda see if instead of laughing, someone fapped to that instead.
What part of Muskegon County?
Not exactly. In 2017-2018 the B1G payout per school is projected to be $45 million, the same number as the SEC. And by 2019, the B1G will start pullng away from the SEC.
2018 (projected)
SEC: $45+ million
Big Ten: $45 million (new Tier 1 deal)
Big 12: $37.5 million
Pac-12: $32.5 million
The article is almost entirely about the PAC-12's revenue deficit. The headline makes the most sense for their audience.
I don't know why you are lumping us in with the SEC as being $12 mil/year ahead of the Pac-12.
But like it or not, non-revenue generating sports (and the athletes) are not going anywhere. Maybe football players should be compensated somewhat, but other athletes/costs have to be taken into consideration (costs, not just revenues). I'm in favor of letting college athletes profit off their image/likeness, but that opens up a whole can of worms to allow boosters around rules and under table dealings (I know, which already occur but not as voluminous as it would)
In a version of Earth where the NCAA permits each student to freely chase his or her true market value (whether by appearing in advertisements, signing memorabilia, accepting $100 handshakes, whatever) the *only* incentive for "under table dealings" is tax evasion.
In that world, there's no reason to expect the Bagman State would survive -- not in the secretive way, at least. Because bagmen want to give these gifts, whatever $50 or $50,000 handout that bagman wants to give contributes to that player's market value and is therefore allowed by the rules. As well as perfectly morally neutral.
The players would be expected to comprehensively account for all of these earnings and should expect to be policed exactly as much/little as the rest of us during tax season.
That's the perfect Libertarian viewpoint, and being one myself, I identify with it. However, to me, it's best to look at the limits the NCAA puts on player compensation as the college version of Pro salary caps.
The NCAA may cloak their rules in idealistic tenents such as student athletes and amateurism, but these rules mostly exist as a means of reducing competition between teams on the cost side as best they can, and keep a competitive on field product.
I'm highly in favor of that concept. And at least athletes, of whatever sport, have the opportunity to get an education. Anyone who has paid for their own, or is paying student loans should be able to identify with how much that education is worth, no matter where you got it.
I mean, who cares? Like, is the pac-12 going to go bankrupt or something? So what's the difference if they generate 28M or 40M per year? Especially since Michigan is not in the pac-12, I just don't understand why anyone on this board would care?
Some people care about comparing penis size... You just have to get over it and move on.
when everyone keeps yanking down my pants and laughing?
The difference is 12 million.
Not likely that the PAC-12 could snag Texas or anyone else the SEC or Big Ten wanted.
Because it lets us afford things like former Super Bowl coaches and Performance Centers.
As a cold-weather school that is not dedicated to cheating as a way of life, it's the one advantage we do have.
I have no problem at all with us taking full advantage of it. And we are finally starting to do it.
I cherish the day when we beat USC in the Rose Bowl because they could not afford that one extra pair of eyes on the staff that noticed a snap count tell on a 4th and 1 alignment.
I agree. No one can force the notoriously cheap Barry Alvarez to spend money at Wisconsin but at least he has the ability to do so. I think you're starting to see that in the lower tier schools as well with Minnesota hiring Fleck and Purdue hiring Brohm. I thought both those guys could get better jobs but it's pretty hard to turn down $20MM over 6 years if you're Brohm or $18.5MM over 5 years in the case of Fleck.
Back in the time when M was on for free, we could watch them once or twice a season. I'll pay the cable bill, thankyou...
I find it hard to believe that USC is not making money. Am I reading that wrong? If those schools are in the red why are their coaching salaries continuing to rise?
The 1% versus the 1.5%.
It's quite devastating.
There are over 400,000 NCAA student-athletes, and just about all of them are going pro in something other than sports.
If these conferences pooled their money together and paid every student athlete, it would equate to a whopping $331.12 per athlete.
I have been a huge proponent of bringing capitalist market economics to the last bastion of communism in America -- the NCAA. Where else do the owners of the service providers tell employees what they are worth and deny any bargaining whatsoever, and won't let them organize etc. because it's not in the alleged public interest.
BUT... we should bring capitalism to the sport, NOT socialism.
Some D-III gymnast shouldn't get the same paycheck as the starting SDE of the Crimson Tide. No one is (or should be) saying that. It's about leverage and market power. Players on Bama and OSU have a lot more bargaining power than some D-III athlete who isn't even on scholarship. That D-III athlete isn't making any revenue for his or her school. So in no way should or will that D-III athlete get the same cut as the Alabama starting DL.
So I totally don't get why you do that math. That would be like saying, if every employer pooled their revenues and divided it equally among all employees throughout the entire country, everyone would make $X. But that means Jim Harbaugh makes the same money as the fry cook at Mickey D's. Wrong country.
It's not discrimination on the basis of gender if the rule change broadly welcomes all NCAA athletes to chase their own market value. That's an equal opportunity available to every student already and suddenly all athletes, as well.
Obviously the revenue athletes (who happen to be young men) would earn far greater revenue because they have a far greater market value. Which is our world's economic order. Asking or expecting everyone to earn the same revenue isn't about Title IX; it's about overturning capitalism.
That is in no way how Title IX will be interpreted by those enforcing it. It is an "equality of outcome" kind of law. It wouldn't cover the bagman payments that suddenly become legal, but it would sure cover what the universities give the players.
I think the lawsuit of the US Woman's national soccer team is a prime example. They are claiming they get less money than their male counterparts, despite doing exactly the same thing and under exactly the same rules (and looking way, way better in tight shorts).
In fact, though, the MARKETS are not the same. Its not like two factory workers standing side by side pressing the same buttons. Here, the market for male football is way different than the market for women's volleyball. The DC Divas don't have a lawsuit that the Redskins players make more money. (Yeah you'll have to look that up.)
How Title IX interact with this, I'm not sure -- no one has paid athletes at schools professionally, at least not without a bagman and a Southern or Ohioan accent.
Well, simply put, the DC Divas and Washington Redskins are two distinct organizations. The mens' football team and the womens' tennis team at a particular school are not. We already somewhat know how Title IX will interact with schools that pay players: it completely refuses to take into account that male athletes help pay for females.
Are you going to advertise for Enterprise Rent-A-Car next? I mean, they have been helping student-athletes succeed both on and off the field since 2005.
Negged for no other reason than the headline written by a Hello Giggles wannabe.
because its new TV deals don't kick in until the fall.