Jump to content

Hurtlocker

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    2157
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Hurtlocker

  1. 30 minutes ago, TKthunder2 said:

    The difference between the A and B package is the top 4 games. After that they are the same IIRC. What I saw rumored was those 4 games would be required to be on ABC.

    The contract stipulated how many games had to be on FOX but nothing specified how many were to be on ABC which was my point.

    Not sure on the rumor, but, financially, these will all be on ABC or FOX.   You don't spend T1 money to put them on ESPN2 or FS1.   You have 25-30 other games, each, outside these 20 to dump on the other channels.

  2. 11 minutes ago, 'stache said:

    Are you intentionally ignoring the next sentence?

    "After all expenses, OSU was left with “just shy of” $1.1M in profits, though that includes a “one-time institutional support payment” of $12,934,006 from the university. That was done to “help the athletic department overcome a loss” of $14,192,693 from the COVID-impacted 2020-21 fiscal year.

    So you agreed with the numbers.

    • Hook 'Em 1
  3. 5 minutes ago, 'stache said:

    Not sure what year you're looking at or the source, but OSU breaks even or profits with minimal student fees.

    Oklahoma State’s athletic department had total operating expenses of $103,317,155 while the school’s revenues reached $104,404,398 for the 2021-22 fiscal year, according to Scott Wright of the OKLAHOMAN.

    https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/Daily/Issues/2023/02/16/Colleges/oklahoma-state-athletics-financials.aspx#:~:text=Oklahoma State's athletic department had,Scott Wright of the OKLAHOMAN.

    In 2022, Oklahoma State reported $75,606 in student fees and a $12,934,006 allocation from the school.

  4. 10 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

    I'm assuming this is because they make students pay for season tickets separately from tuition?

    Exactly.   Some schools charge them after, some build them into fees for loans.   Some just do small amounts, some fees cover all student tickets to all sports.   It's an anomaly that doesn't matter in the finance comparison, but its hard to strip out.

  5. 1 minute ago, Al_4_ISU said:

    Iowa and Iowa State profit on their own.  Have for years.

    Last year Iowa had $650k in student fees and Iowa State had $1,847,367 in student fees.   This is my point, some allocations come from fees, which are just pre-sold student activity tickets.   The way USA Today publishes it though, they mix them with school funds in aggregate.   You have to drill in to find the detail, and I don't plan on doing that for 60 schools, hence the disclaimer.   

  6. Found this interesting:

    c6a93683de04856fec1d73e3b74c2632.png

    If you look at the latest finances and strip out allocations as "school funding", even though some are just student tickets to all events as a fee and shouldn't count, then do a P/L on it, these are the current P5 teams that pop up (these are in order from most to least and doesn't include privates because I don't feel like looking them all up individually):

    • Turns profit on own (25)- Indiana, Georgia, Ohio State, Purdue, Kansas State, Michigan, A&M, Michigan State, Texas, Florida, Oregon, Nebraska, Penn State, Clemson, Arkansas, Kansas, Auburn, Bama, LSU, Illinois, Kentucky, Mississippi State, Missouri, Oklahoma and Louisville
    • Less than $5m in loss (e.g. student ticket crowd) (8) - Iowa, Texas Tech, Wisconsin, WVU, Iowa State, Tennessee, Minnesota, South Carolina.
    • $5-$15m in loss (10)- NC State, UNC, Ole Miss, Utah, GTech, Oklahoma State, Florida State, Colorado, Virginia, Washington State.
    • $15m-$25m in loss (5) - Oregon State, VTech, Washington, Maryland, Arizona State
    • +$25m in loss (4) - Cal, UCLA, Arizona, Rutgers.
    • Like 1
  7. Just now, Frank Drebin said:

    Prime Time wants to be in a prime conference.

    Maybe eventually, but a quick move by him would be shocking, especially since all of his kids, even his daughter, play for the Buffs now.   Also, its not like he's not getting recruits and he owns the place.   

    • Hook 'Em 1
  8. 14 minutes ago, statsman said:

    They pick their games before the season starts, right? In your educated guess…what are the top four Big XII games next year? Is it all Colorado?

    Taking Colorado out (say they have the top nine games), what would be the next four?

    I don't know the schedule, but I'd agree, of the B16 teams next year Colorado comes in with the most buzz, followed by Utah.   One of the Texas teams, likely TCU just due to the past year or two, and then whoever starts to step up to end the season.   Not sure Texas will take many dings this year with everyone else down, but Oklahoma does not look like a world beater.   Whoever makes it to the end will have the leg up for next year.     Definitely not top four, but I'd expect West Virginia and Iowa State to get a lot of Fox love, because they have a higher floor on their audiences on national games than the others, e.g. they do well even when they suck.    

  9. 2 hours ago, TKthunder2 said:

    Here’s the best breakdown I could find. No requirements for OTA on ABC.

    https://www.mattsarzsports.com/Contract/GameList/Big12/2023

    I did see in a comments section while looking around that ESPN’s new “A” package is required to be on ABC. That’s only 4 games a year. Again, haven’t been able to confirm that from a real source though.

    No no, the A package is the Mouse, the B package is Fox.  

    In the A package they get:

    • The top 4 overall picks
    • 6 of the top 8
    • 8 of the top 12 and
    • 12 of the top 20 picks
    • They also get the basketball and football CCGs

    Fox, with the B package, gets to pick in the gaps of the above, and I'm guessing it goes 1 to 1 after 20.    However, Fox gets 26 games for Fox and FS1, which is basically 2 per week.   If you figure ESPN's is similar, but with better content, you should see roughly four games a week on ABC, Fox, FS1 and an ESPN channel.   The rest, that aren't on Thursday or Friday, will likely fall to ESPN+, but so far this year they have had more of the games that would stream land on something like the U.    To get to these kinds of payouts they need at least two T1 a week.

    It also is likely to change.    With 12 teams you have 54 conference games a year.   With 16 you have 72.    They didn't pay the four new teams $120m a year for all that content to go on streaming.   My guess is they get an ABC/ESPN/FOX on Saturday, and some of these games fall to ESPN late night or on Friday.

    • Hook 'Em 1
  10. 1 hour ago, TKthunder2 said:

    They do not have any guarantees on their broadcast windows. They and the ACC could theoretically never appear on ABC again. We know this won’t happen as a ranked v ranked matchup will get eyes but unlike the SEC and B1G which have over the air minimum considerations in their contracts.

    The Big Ten will have the Big Noon on FOX, the 230 spot of CBS, and a night game on NBC. The SEC will have their 230 spot on ABC and likely a Noon/Night game as well (though that also is not guaranteed).

    The Big 12’s biggest asset is that they are the only other major football conference on FOX and with the Big Ten’s exclusive OTA windows that leaves them some virtually guaranteed OTA windows.

    They do have slot and promotional guarantees.   That's how contracts get priced.

    • Hook 'Em 2
  11. On 9/26/2023 at 11:45 AM, Laxtonto said:

    This is really interesting because I didn't know about the CFP need for 100% agreement for all changes and one of the P12 people is on the board...

    It also tracks with the issue I had with where the $$ worked from the CFP. No one could tell me what happens if a confernece goes away or how they would redo a split.  Now this also falls into the question of how the NCAA can dissolve the the Pac12 due to lack of membership.

     

    I always said big picture-wise that it was best for all other conferences if the Pac12 died vs retaining zombie status and now this adds that more credence to that idea.

    They need 100% until this contract ends, they don't need it in 2026.

  12. 7 minutes ago, bullet said:

    The By-laws are not clear at all.  They are very vague and poorly written.  Its pretty clear that one section confuses actually leaving with giving notice of leaving.

    Its not clear at all who does and doesn't have voting rights now.  I sure wouldn't put money on any possible outcome if it went to court.

    I was shocked when I read them, it was like "Hold up, these are bylaws, what circus clown wrote this?"

    • Hook 'Em 1
  13. 7 hours ago, billfromlaketravis said:

    I think some of their alumni’s fortunes are bullet proof. The Hunts for sure. NFL ownership has the best rate of return of almost any investment.

    The money should be there, but some shit will happen between now and 2036. I think SMU is too dismissive of the money they’re forgoing. 

    They're really only forgoing about $70-100m, that's what the AAC would pay them over that time.   In return they get more exposure.

     

  14. 2 hours ago, 'stache said:

    ASU may very well be an undertog to TXST next year. ASU is a big school with a good fanbase, but they haven't done anything of note in football in recent memory.

    You mean besides hiring a big name friend as a coach who couldn't coach college and broke a lot of rules before they finally got rid of him for a solid amount of money, then slapped the penalties of his work on the kids who were trying to rebuild, irritating the players and the fanbase and making pariahs out of the president and AD?

  15. I really don't give a fuck about SMU, but why wouldn't you do it.   You only get paid $7m a year now, let's say you have a $20m buyout.   So, for just shy of $100m you get to build excitement and place yourself in the upper two tiers of the haves for exposure and money going forward.    Kind of a no brainer.

    What I can't get is why the ACC would do it.  I can't imagine this makes FSU/Clemson/UNC want to stick around longer and the optics of them not wanting it and ND wanting it is going to sting

    • Hook 'Em 1
  16. 30 minutes ago, bullet said:

    https://sports.yahoo.com/it-is-insane--how-the-accs-contentious-back-and-forth-expansion-deal-ultimately-got-done-170122627.html

    ACC was trying to go full Big 10, negotiating with AU, ASU, UU as well as Cal and Stanford when AU/ASU/UU lost patience.

    Insane is a good way of phrasing it, this can't be sustainable.   SMU is taking no money AND hosting most of the Olympic events for Cal and Stanford.  Crazy

  17. 28 minutes ago, gatormarc said:

    I don't even fully understand it. It had something to do with NCAA tournament payouts to the conference and who gets it if/when teams leave.

    Not sure what the gap/delay is between tournaments and the payout.

    every win in the NCAA tournament earns you a credit, the more your conference wins the more credits you get.   They do it on like a 3 or 5 year swing I can't remember, then that is how the NCAA shares the revenue from the tourney, its not paid out on a single year.   I think the B12 made the most last year with like $11m or something, but most of the big conferences are like $7-10m a year.

    So for the Pac, WSU and OSU are sitting on 3-5 years of credits from the NCAA which could pay out $20-30m

×
×
  • Create New...