Knight Commission

[upstater]

There were plenty of tickets available the day before the final 4 for well under $100. The average ticket resale price for the final four was $204.

That's totally irrelevant to what the NCAA makes. The NCAA takes the face value of the ticket. Whatever value it has in the resale market is a different story and the NCAA doesn't make any of that. I mean, fans resell tickets after their team loses.

Next year's tickets are rising to a base price of $690 for 3rd level, $1725 for 1st level.

 

[upstater]

View attachment 76476
Lol, I don’t think this says what you think it says.

It said average tickets.

Do you know what average means?

Next year's base tickets are $690. That's the cheapest.

What is wrong with you 2?

 

[superjohn]

That's totally irrelevant to what the NCAA makes. The NCAA takes the face value of the ticket. Whatever value it has in the resale market is a different story and the NCAA doesn't make any of that. I mean, fans resell tickets after their team loses.

Next year's tickets are rising to a base price of $690 for 3rd level, $1725 for 1st level.

It said average tickets.

Do you know what average means?

Next year's base tickets are $690. That's the cheapest.

What is wrong with you 2?

I don't know why you Gaslight. The average ticket for the final 4 was $200 and you could get tickets for 50 bucks the day before the game. You claim the average ticket was $600.

 

[CL82]

It said average tickets.

Do you know what average means?

Next year's base tickets are $690. That's the cheapest.

What is wrong with you 2?

LOL what’s wrong with us, I don’t know, the ability to read, I guess?

The link you provided for next year’s tickets seem to list a starting price of $289 and all three of the links show prices of less than $695, so ….

 

[BlueMAB]

income redistribution = socialism

What do you call it when Depaul, with their 1 tournament win in the last 30+ years, gets a greater share of income from the tournament than Gonzaga does, with their 40+ tournament wins in the last 20+ years?

The system in place already redistributes income by giving it to the conferences based on performance over a few years, rather than simply paying the teams that make the tournament directly.

You're defending a socialist system, by arguing that an expansion of that system is unacceptable because it's socialism.

 

[David 76]

I think some people are confusing the revenue of a college's athletic department with the NCAA's money.
Most all colleges Athletic Departments lose money. Including UConn and its men's basketball. These budgets pay for non-profit revenue sports. Not the ncaa.
You could ask why students and parents have to pay for the basketball and football programs at UConn if fairness is your real concern.

On the almost $1billion that the NCAA makes off the tournament they will pay $0 in taxes unlike a business. You could ask if that is fair.

You could ask why the women's national soccer team has brought in more money than the men and been paid less. They will now split the pot with with the men. Same as NCAA basketball except the women produce more revenue in that situation. I haven't heard anyone jumping up to say the women's team is getting screwed.
You may think women's sports have no value. I disagree. But our opinions dont matter. There is a law protects their rights.

 

[Get a Job]

What do you call it when Depaul, with their 1 tournament win in the last 30+ years, gets a greater share of income from the tournament than Gonzaga does, with their 40+ tournament wins in the last 20+ years?

The system in place already redistributes income by giving it to the conferences based on performance over a few years, rather than simply paying the teams that make the tournament directly.

You're defending a socialist system, by arguing that an expansion of that system is unacceptable because it's socialism.

You're likely wasting your keystrokes. The post to which you're replying is an indication of the poster's inability or disinterest in considering such issues in a nuanced way.

 

[JohnFSilver]

I believe the budget for the women’s tournament in either 2020 or 2021 was $14.5 million. But that was based upon the fact that a lot of the games were held at the higher seeds a home court so that the NCAA did not have to pay airfare or lodging for them.

If I recall correctly ESPN pays something like $24-$36 million to CBS for the rights to carry the women’s tournament. Assuming all of that is correct that means that potentially the woman’s basketball tournament makes between $10 and $22 million. A significant amount of money, but to your point, pennies on the dollar compared to what the men’s team makes.

If the woman’s tournament changes its spending such that it matches the amenities afforded the men’s teams their expenses will be higher eroding that profit by an unknown figure.

Oh, @upstater? I wouldn’t bank on that $100 million figure until it actually materializes. That’s an estimate, not a fact.

Women's contact for NCAA tourney is underpriced. That's one of the major things we will see in the women's game going forward.

I think the women's tournament was always a "because we have to" for NCAA. ESPN, on the other hand, really wants that tournament.

 

[CL82]

Women's contact for NCAA tourney is underpriced. That's one of the major things we will see in the women's game going forward.

I think the women's tournament was always a "because we have to" for NCAA. ESPN, on the other hand, really wants that tournament.

There is no woman’s contract for the NCAA tournament, at least from the NCAA‘s perspective. CBS buys the rights to everything and then sells the rights to the women’s tournament to ESPN.

There isn’t a doubt in my mind that a new deal which sold it as a standalone right would earn more than the $34 million it currently earns. For my perspective, the logical way for the NCAA to distribute postseason basketball participation revenue sharing is just to establish percentages per game and then apply them to each tournament without regard to gender. That’s fair, right?

Of course those of us who paid attention in third grade math, realize that does not mean that women’s participants will earn the same amount of money as men’s participants. Identical percentages applied to different numbers will produce different results. A smaller pool will produce a smaller revenue sharing result, notwithstanding that the same revenue sharing rules are applied to each tournament. That’s not gender inequity, that’s math.

 

[JohnFSilver]

There is no woman’s contract for the NCAA tournament, at least from the NCAA‘s perspective. CBS buys the rights to everything and then sells the rights to the women’s tournament to ESPN.

There isn’t a doubt in my mind that a new deal which sold it as a standalone right would earn more than the $34 million it currently earns. For my perspective, the logical way for the NCAA to distribute postseason basketball participation revenue sharing is just to establish percentages per game and then apply them to each tournament without regard to gender. That’s fair, right?

Of course those of us who paid attention in third grade math, realize that does not mean that women’s participants will earn the same amount of money as men’s participants. Identical percentages applied to different numbers will produce different results. A smaller pool will produce a smaller revenue sharing result, notwithstanding that the same revenue sharing rules are applied to each tournament. That’s not gender inequity, that’s math.

Exactly. The women’s tournament is underpriced. They are an add on to the cbs contract.

Espn has a bargain for that tournament. I think the ncaa has really done a poor job marketing that event. They literally don’t care about it.

 

[CL82]

Exactly. The women’s tournament is underpriced. They are an add on to the cbs contract.

Espn has a bargain for that tournament. I think the ncaa has really done a poor job marketing that event. They literally don’t care about it.

Yet, they’re in this business to make money, so if they thought promoting it would make them more money, they undoubtedly would.

For what it’s worth, I struggle with the use of the phrase “underpriced“ regarding the women’s tournament. That was the price agreed-upon by willing buyer and a willing seller each reasonably knowledgeable about the circumstances. That, definitionally, is the fair market value. Now, I agree with you, in all likelihood I would expect that value to increase the next time those rates are put up for sale, but that is speculative. I know you get that, I think some other posters may not.

 

[upstater]

I don't know why you Gaslight. The average ticket for the final 4 was $200 and you could get tickets for 50 bucks the day before the game. You claim the average ticket was $600.

I'm talking about NCAA face value price for tickets. Not the resale at frickin' Seat Geek and the like.

This whole discussion is about NCAA revenue, not the aftermarket.

When teams lose in the NCAAs, their teams sell their tickets frequently well below face value.

Everyone knows this.

All you have to do is go to the NCAAs own site to see that next year's tickets are $690 for the cheapest ticket. When a team loses, that team's fans will flood the aftermarket with cheap tickets

 

[upstater]

LOL what’s wrong with us, I don’t know, the ability to read, I guess?

The link you provided for next year’s tickets seem to list a starting price of $289 and all three of the links show prices of less than $695, so ….

The link said the average ticket price was $600.

Again, why is this so difficult?

If I sell some tickets for $290 and others for $900, and then I say the average price was $600, then we have a number that we can multiply by all seats sold.

As for this year, the lowest ticket price is $690.

 

[CL82]

As for this year, the lowest ticket price is $690.

Dude, if someone is offering to sell you a ticket to this year’s event for $690, I highly recommend that you don’t buy them since the event is over. If you were talking about next year‘s event the link that you provided showed a price of under $300, I think it was $289.

I feel as if you believe you have a point that you’re making, but I’ll be damned if I know what it is.

 

[upstater]

Dude, if someone is offering to sell you a ticket to this year’s event for $690, I highly recommend that you don’t buy them since the event is over. If you were talking about next year‘s event the link that you provided showed a price of under $300, I think it was $289.

I feel as if you believe you have a point that you’re making, but I’ll be damned if I know what it is.

This is really difficult for you, isn't it?

Every one here understands my point except you and Suerjohn.

No one has recommended you buy a ticket for $300.

I'm talking about NCAA revenues here, and that's my only interest. The money the NCAA makes off its tournament. The NCAA makes ZERO money from the resale of its tickets on any website.

ZERO.

The NCAA makes money on the sale of its tickets, the cheapest of which is $690.

This is not rocket science. Pretty easy to understand.

 

[Get a Job]

This is really difficult for you, isn't it?

Every one here understands my point except you and Suerjohn.

No one has recommended you buy a ticket for $300.

I'm talking about NCAA revenues here, and that's my only interest. The money the NCAA makes off its tournament. The NCAA makes ZERO money from the resale of its tickets on any website.

ZERO.

The NCAA makes money on the sale of its tickets, the cheapest of which is $690.

This is not rocket science. Pretty easy to understand.

Are you saying someone is paying $690 for a seat in the rafters?

 

[CL82]

This is really difficult for you, isn't it?

Every one here understands my point except you and Suerjohn.

No one has recommended you buy a ticket for $300.

I'm talking about NCAA revenues here, and that's my only interest. The money the NCAA makes off its tournament. The NCAA makes ZERO money from the resale of its tickets on any website.

ZERO.

The NCAA makes money on the sale of its tickets, the cheapest of which is $690.

This is not rocket science. Pretty easy to understand.

You’re fixated on the cheapest seat being $690 other people are trying to tell you that’s not true, other people are trying to point out to you that the link you provided doesn’t say that, but here’s the thing, it’s not even central to the point you were trying to make. I’m not sure why you’re so locked in on it, but it’s been vaguely entertaining to watch.

 

[upstater]

You’re fixated on the cheapest seat being $690 other people are trying to tell you that’s not true, other people are trying to point out to you that the link you provided doesn’t say that, but here’s the thing, it’s not even central to the point you were trying to make. I’m not sure why you’re so locked in on it, but it’s been vaguely entertaining to watch.

You're wrong on both counts.

1. The link says the average ticket for last year was $600. I've pointed this out to you numerous times.

2. The $690 figure is the cheapest price for this year.

3. It absolutely is related to the actual revenue for ticket sales by the NCAA. The aftermarket has nothing to do with NCAA revenue.

You should learn this basic fact: if I buy a ticket from the NCAA at face value, and then resell at lower value, the NCAA doesn't rake in only the value I resold it for. This is basic, I guess. But hey, this is what you need to realize.

 

[upstater]

Are you saying someone is paying $690 for a seat in the rafters?

It's for the whole weekend. All 3 games. 300 levels are $690. Yes.

 

[superjohn]

You’re fixated on the cheapest seat being $690 other people are trying to tell you that’s not true, other people are trying to point out to you that the link you provided doesn’t say that, but here’s the thing, it’s not even central to the point you were trying to make. I’m not sure why you’re so locked in on it, but it’s been vaguely entertaining to watch.

He's so lost, it's really strange.

 

[UconnU]

Women's contact for NCAA tourney is underpriced. That's one of the major things we will see in the women's game going forward.

I think the women's tournament was always a "because we have to" for NCAA. ESPN, on the other hand, really wants that tournament.

It’s overpriced. There isn’t the kind of demand for womens hoops as you think there is. It’s a beautiful game very fundamental but it’s not as fast or as physical as the mens. Isn’t as entertaining for the viewer.

 

[CL82]

You're wrong on both counts.

1. The link says the average ticket for last year was $600. I've pointed this out to you numerous times.

2. The $690 figure is the cheapest price for this year.

3. It absolutely is related to the actual revenue for ticket sales by the NCAA. The aftermarket has nothing to do with NCAA revenue.

You should learn this basic fact: if I buy a ticket from the NCAA at face value, and then resell at lower value, the NCAA doesn't rake in only the value I resold it for. This is basic, I guess. But hey, this is what you need to realize.

Nope. The link you provided said the cheapest price for this year was $289 as has been pointed out to you numerous times.

Do you understand that ticket price does not equal net profit, right? As we’ve talked about regarding UConn’s deal with the XL Center, sometimes, renting a venue can trigger a loss, rather than a profit. As you have pointed out the vast majority of games for the NCAA tournament are played in largely empty venues. All of those venues still need to be paid for. “But, but, but $690!” really isn’t an answer.

In any event, your core point, I think, was if the woman’s game actually makes a profit, then revenue should be shared. I don’t think anyone disagrees with that. It just shouldn’t look like the men’s profit distribution because even the rosiest of predictions indicate that the value of the women’s tournament is pennies on the dollar compared to the men’s tournament. Your “but but but $690“ here doesn’t really advance that argument, but it is entertaining wheel spinning.

You’re welcome.

 

[upstater]

Nope. The link you provided said the cheapest price for this year was $289 as has been pointed out to you numerous times.

Do you understand that ticket price does not equal net profit, right? As we’ve talked about regarding UConn’s deal with the XL Center, sometimes, renting a venue can trigger a loss, rather than a profit. As you have pointed out the vast majority of games for the NCAA tournament are played in largely empty venues. All of those venues still need to be paid for. “But, but, but $690!” really isn’t an answer.

In any event, your core point, I think, was if the woman’s game actually makes a profit, then revenue should be shared. I don’t think anyone disagrees with that. It just shouldn’t look like the men’s profit distribution because even the rosiest of predictions indicate that the value of the women’s tournament is pennies on the dollar compared to the men’s tournament. Your “but but but $690“ here doesn’t really advance that argument, but it is entertaining wheel spinning.

You’re welcome.

You're obtuse.

and a very bad reader.

As i wrote in my post, average price $600. Says it right in the article.

So YOU'RE WRONG.

As for empty venues, it's clear to everyone who can read that $690 is the cost of the entirety of the F4 weekend (all 3 games plus concerts).

YOU'RE TOTALLY WRONG ABOUT EVERYTHING.

But worse, you're obtuse

 

[CL82]

You're obtuse.

and a very bad reader.

As i wrote in my post, average price $600. Says it right in the article.

So YOU'RE WRONG.

As for empty venues, it's clear to everyone who can read that $690 is the cost of the entirety of the F4 weekend (all 3 games plus concerts).

YOU'RE TOTALLY WRONG ABOUT EVERYTHING.

But worse, you're obtuse

You seem upset. Maybe you should take a break for a little while?

Anyway, here’s the link you provided…

“But but but $690”

Lol. (And that’s still not profit. You understand the difference right?)

 

[navery12]

You seem upset. Maybe you should take a break for a little while?

Anyway, here’s the link you provided…
View attachment 76534

“But but but $690”

Lol.

I'm not trying to get in the middle of this and have no opinion, I've typed this out after 3 of your previous replies and then deleted it because I didn't want to get involved. But you keep repeatedly screenshotting the price for semifinal only tickets and quoting that price while he quotes the price for all session tickets (semifinals and finals).

You're having a parallel argument that has no overlap with his, and the same with his posts to you

 

[CL82]

I'm not trying to get in the middle of this and have no opinion, I've typed this out after 3 of your previous replies and then deleted it because I didn't want to get involved. But you keep repeatedly screenshotting the price for semifinal only tickets and quoting that price while he quotes the price for all session tickets (semifinals and finals).

You're having a parallel argument that has no overlap with his, and the same with his posts to you

Next year's base tickets are $690

As for this year, the lowest ticket price is $690.

Nope

 

[navery12]

Nope

You're very clearly misunderstanding his argument and given how clearly it was laid out it has to be intentional, which is incredibly annoying when it's gone on for pages. It's like if I told you I paid $11 for a burger and fries and you repeatedly tried to refute my point by saying I could have paid only $8 for a burger

 

[CL82]

You're very clearly misunderstanding his argument and given how clearly it was laid out it has to be intentional, which is incredibly annoying when it's gone on for pages. It's like if I told you I paid $11 for a burger and fries and you repeatedly tried to refute my point by saying I could have paid only $8 for a burger

Meh, his quotes are his quotes. They are wrong. But it’s really not a big deal to me or even particularly relevant to his initial argument.

(A better analogy would be if you told me the cheapest burger was $11 and I look at the menu you handed me and point out that they start at $5. Just sayin.)

 

[BigErnMcCracken]

I have zero interest in this debate but it is peak Boneyard that the two people mocking Upstater keep citing ticket prices on the secondary market in a thread about NCAA revenue. It’s perfect.

 

[CL82]

I have zero interest in this debate but it is peak Boneyard that the two people mocking Upstater keep citing ticket prices on the secondary market in a thread about NCAA revenue. It’s perfect.

I guess, except, you realize that upstate is the one who linked to that site aA support for his position, right?