NCAA exploring Big 5 conference autonomy | Page 3 | The Boneyard

NCAA exploring Big 5 conference autonomy

Status
Not open for further replies.
Honestly, I don't see how all of the schools in P5 are going to be able to afford what the so called group of 10-15 schools want to do. I am not sure that the math is there in terms of increased TV revenue making that happen.

This move will only expose the next level of fissures among the P5.
 
Nice try, what?

Funny. My link goes right to the NCAA.org website. Yours references ESPN and person who most people don't trust as far as they can throw him. Be that as it may: $30,600,000 / 4% = $765,000,000. And technically, a not-for-profit organization makes exactly $0.00. By law, it must pay out or restrict for future use all proceeds over expense. They do this by contributing to Internal Funds. So by posting the NCAA's Administration fund is 4% of their budgeted revenue does really move the needle for me.

BTW I don't know exactly how much the Football Compliance department makes as a whole, but I'm guessing it isn't that much in comparison to $30 Million/year. The NCAA will lose 10s of $millions more in revenue than they save in compliance salary expense.
You bring up that the NCAA makes money on football, but you aren't providing any evidence other than saying that you take 1 billion football tickets x $25 per ticket goes to the NCAA and they make billions of dollars (exaggeration is intentional). The NCAA makes most of its money from the NCAA tournament TV contract - it can survive without "sanctioning" the football regular season.
 
Honestly, I don't see how all of the schools in P5 are going to be able to afford what the so called group of 10-15 schools want to do. I am not sure that the math is there in terms of increased TV revenue making that happen.

This move will only expose the next level of fissures among the P5.

The tv contract for the playoff is nearly $500MM per year with virtually all of it going to the P5 conferences. That means that every P5 school will make an additional $3-4MM per year just from the playoff payout. This is before they collect their $20+MM from the conference contract

If a P5 school averages 400 student athletes & pays a "stipend" of $5000 they pay out $2MM in "stipends". The $2MM they would have to pay out in order to ensure separation is a smart business move for them

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefoo...ollege-playoff-for-470m-per-year-through-2025
 
The tv contract for the playoff is nearly $500MM per year with virtually all of it going to the P5 conferences. That means that every P5 school will make an additional $3-4MM per year just from the playoff payout. This is before they collect their $20+MM from the conference contract

If a P5 school averages 400 student athletes & pays a "stipend" of $5000 they pay out $2MM in "stipends". The $2MM they would have to pay out in order to ensure separation is a smart business move for them

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefoo...ollege-playoff-for-470m-per-year-through-2025

If you are a P5 school that is already operating at a loss then when this all shakes out they will still be operating at a loss.
 
Stefanie Loh‏@StefanieLoh
58% supports autonomy for the Big 5 conferences at NCAA Convention #d1talk pic.twitter.com/TnWAujxdKr

enem2.jpg
 
.-.
I'm definitely going to find Mark Emmert's house and poop in his cheerios
 
If you are a P5 school that is already operating at a loss then when this all shakes out they will still be operating at a loss.

The majority of schools are already losing money. That is not going to change

This article says the ACC paid out $16.9MM for 2011-2012. http://www.bizjournals.com/triangle/blog/2013/05/acc-schools-averaged-169m-payout.html

The new ESPN contract will pay out $20MM plus the playoff money will be another $3-4MM = $23-24MM

So again, the question is are you willing to pay an extra $2MM to make an extra $7MM?

What is a school like Wake Forest going to do? Say no, we would rather leave the ACC & join the ACC so we can make $2MM per year.
 
I want to see the survey question results for the following question - 'Mark Emmert is egotistical fool that only cares about his own PR image and will throw anyone under the bus to save that image and to avoid taking responsibility for his actions and should be fired.’
 
There isn't enough info in that tweet. Come on. What is question 8 and how did they get that answer? Who answered? When?

The classic rule of government, is that if you can't get something passed through a legislature - change the rules.

The 5 chosen tribes of Bristol, are simply trying to change the rules. The rest of the tribes of the world, need to be constantly on watch and aware.
 
You bring up that the NCAA makes money on football, but you aren't providing any evidence other than saying that you take 1 billion football tickets x $25 per ticket goes to the NCAA and they make billions of dollars (exaggeration is intentional). The NCAA makes most of its money from the NCAA tournament TV contract - it can survive without "sanctioning" the football regular season.

The net number doesn't appear to publicly exist on its own and I'm not looking any deeper. That is why I'm trying to back into it. As I said, I have neither the time nor inclination to do your research. I will buy your TV contract point only because it is reasonable on its face according to the math ($10.8 Billion / 14 = $771,000/yr). That said, and Football being the only other revenue generating sport, Football contributes in the neighborhood of $40 Million/year. But the NCAA's revenue streams do not exist in a vacuum either.

Now that you bring up the TV Contract, there is a specific clause that says the NCAA will not amend its rules in any of a series of ways "to the extent such amendment causes a material adverse effect on Broadcaster." "...and, in a phrasing that is not completed because of omitted pages, "the creation of another postseason Division I men's basketball tournament that materially diminishes the status" ... I think the P5 breaking off from the NCAA in a manner that member schools may no longer be in the Tournament adversely affects the Broadcaster.

Hypothetically, say the p5 segregates itself in football only. How does the NCAA allows them back under the umbrella for other sports including basketball? The NCAA becomes a paper tiger slaving to the whim of the P5. It is a slippery slope from there to other institutions outright ignoring their "governing body" because there are 2 different explicitly stated sets of rules for these 65 arbitrarily thrown together teams vs. the other 1100 universities (Oh yeah, we're still talking about not-for-profit institutions of higher learning, no?).

So there goes that $40 Million plus a severely negative renegotiation to the Basketball Tournament contract.

If anything truly significant is to happen, I foresee a bevy of anti-trust suits coming to pass. It's a bad time for College sports, regardless if UConn is invited to the Big Ten or ACC).
 
.-.
Nobody should confuse "autonomy" with "breaking away". Autonomy just means the P5 are going to have the power to make rules free from interference from other leagues.

The AAC will pay the stipend to their athletes and continue to compete at the highest level. I think the big question is will the MAC conference drop down to FCS. If they do it just means less recruiting competition for the AAC.
 
Today...

slmandel1:49pm via TweetDeck
Correction: 58 percent of the room voted they "strongly support" or "support" autonomy for the Big 5.#NCAAConv


Nope. Not good enough. This is how this garbage internet info ends up spreading like wildfire and turning into garbage information. Where did mandel get his info from to tweet? Was it the same photo/tweet?

I still don't know what the question was, and who answered. That the question was asked today? Misinformation. Where is Mandel's info from? What is he correcting anyway? I looked at his twitter page - can't figure it out.
 
Nope. Not good enough. This is how this garbage internet info ends up spreading like wildfire and turning into garbage information. Where did mandel get his info from to tweet? Was it the same photo/tweet?

I still don't know what the question was, and who answered. That the question was asked today? Misinformation. Where is Mandel's info from?

Okay - ignore it. I made it up.

He was in the room! Keep up. Go look for other sources. Geez!
 
Okay - ignore it. I made it up.

He was in the room! Keep up. Go look for other sources. Geez!


LOL. Just be careful on info. Seriously. I did just go look through mandel and the other twitter account page. I don't see what mandel need to be correcting unless it was deleted.
 
LOL. Just be careful on info. Seriously. I did just go look through mandel and the other twitter account page. I don't see what mandel need to be correcting unless it was deleted.

He fat fingered the original tweet.
 
See - joeschad has already picked up on the same photo tweet from the sandiego state football writer and made comment about stipends being able to be passed through. Garbage info
 
.-.

just call me an ass, I can take it. Seriously though. I've seen other slides already, from different polling questions, and the topic is on the slide.

So we know when and who was asked. Today, and the room full of AD's.

I want to know what question 8 is. I haven't seen it yet (and I have looked) If you find it before I do - it's a race.

Call it me weird mind, but my bet is that whatever question 8 is - is interesting.
 
just call me an ass, I can take it. Seriously though. I've seen other slides already, from different polling questions, and the topic is on the slide.

So we know when and who was asked. Today, and the room full of AD's.

I want to know what question 8 is. I haven't seen it yet (and I have looked) If you find it before I do - it's a race.

Call it me weird mind, but my bet is that whatever question 8 is - is interesting.

I really don't need to know the actual wording of the question to know what the intent of the question was since it revolved around this statement in the published power point (Defined as the ability, within the current NCAA structure, for the SEC, B1G, PAC-12, ACC and Big 12 conferences and their institutions to adopt reforms in a regulatory structure that respects the demands on student-athletes in the 21st century and acknowledges the need for these conferences/institutions to define rules that address their unique challenges) :)

http://espn.go.com/college-sports/s...mull-giving-power-5-conferences-more-autonomy (Aresco/AAC mention)

I'm sure it will be clear in a written article as opposed to Twitter.
 
Last edited:
The majority of schools are already losing money. That is not going to change

This article says the ACC paid out $16.9MM for 2011-2012. http://www.bizjournals.com/triangle/blog/2013/05/acc-schools-averaged-169m-payout.html

The new ESPN contract will pay out $20MM plus the playoff money will be another $3-4MM = $23-24MM

So again, the question is are you willing to pay an extra $2MM to make an extra $7MM?

What is a school like Wake Forest going to do? Say no, we would rather leave the ACC & join the ACC so we can make $2MM per year.

No, they just vote against it and lose and end up operating even more in the red.

This whole thing will only really benefit about 10-15 programs.
 
I really don't need to know the actual wording of the question to know what the intent of the question was :)

Hmmm. Interesting. Well, I disagree. I'd like to see the question. It might be a very simple question, and that's that, or it might be something else. any lawyer can talk to you all day about how answers and questions are related, and directed........

Given the amount of time and effort that went into this, my guess is that question 8, is something that was very carefully formatted. I've been wrong before though. The question might be as simple as "Do you support Power 5 conference autonomy."

I do think it's odd that the slide pictured says question 8.

Look at this page of twitter photos. Scan down to the one similar slide that's pictured regarding representation on the board..... Notice a difference?

https://twitter.com/search?q=#NCAAConv&src=hash&mode=photos
 
Hmmm. Interesting. Well, I disagree. I'd like to see the question. It might be a very simple question, and that's that, or it might be something else. any lawyer can talk to you all day about how answers and questions are related, and directed...

Given the amount of time and effort that went into this, my guess is that question 8, is something that was very carefully formatted. I've been wrong before though. The question might be as simple as "Do you support Power 5 conference autonomy."

I do think it's odd that the slide pictured says question 8.

Look at this page of twitter photos. Scan down to the one similar slide that's pictured regarding representation on the board..... Notice a difference?

https://twitter.com/search?q=#NCAAConv&src=hash&mode=photos

It's the NCAA! Do you expect everything to be consistent?

I haven't seen anyone call out Schad or Loh as being FOS for the pic/tweet either.
 
.-.
Nobody should confuse "autonomy" with "breaking away". Autonomy just means the P5 are going to have the power to make rules free from interference from other leagues.

The AAC will pay the stipend to their athletes and continue to compete at the highest level. I think the big question is will the MAC conference drop down to FCS. If they do it just means less recruiting competition for the AAC.

That's an assumption. AAC could still be subject to interference from the outside.
 
It's the NCAA! Do you expect everything to be consistent?

I haven't seen anyone call out Schad or Loh as being FOS for the pic/tweet either.

Look, I'm being a mule, I know. Just pointing out what I see. That's all. It wouldn't be surprise me at all to find out that question 8 was some kind of question that posed to the entire audience verbally....whatever....just understand that when you are dealing with a room full of that many people, that are all alpha dogs, there are lots of different ways to communicate and sway majority opinions, and make no mistake - the kind of thing that is being proposed yet again right now, has been going on for well over 20 years, by the same cast of characters.

That's it - I"ll stop.
 
It's the NCAA! Do you expect everything to be consistent?

I haven't seen anyone call out Schad or Loh as being FOS for the pic/tweet either.

Edit - Here is the tweet that Schad fat fingered:

#NCAAConv live poll: To what extent does the room support legislative autonomy for the Big 5 conferences? 56% support, 30% oppose.
— Stewart Mandel (@slmandel) January 17, 2014

Happy dance.gif
 
Well, I said I would stop, but now I can't. You win. You have to figure it was as simple math problem for mandel, but that's the question.

There are still a lot of questions to ask, and this is by no means that those conferences are going to get legislative autonomy. The danger here, is that this kind of polling question and the spread of information turns into a source that the talking heads start using for making broad based conclusions - like Schad saying it should be that stipends could be passed now.
 
Last edited:
The net number doesn't appear to publicly exist on its own and I'm not looking any deeper. That is why I'm trying to back into it. As I said, I have neither the time nor inclination to do your research. I will buy your TV contract point only because it is reasonable on its face according to the math ($10.8 Billion / 14 = $771,000/yr). That said, and Football being the only other revenue generating sport, Football contributes in the neighborhood of $40 Million/year. But the NCAA's revenue streams do not exist in a vacuum either.

Now that you bring up the TV Contract, there is a specific clause that says the NCAA will not amend its rules in any of a series of ways "to the extent such amendment causes a material adverse effect on Broadcaster." "...and, in a phrasing that is not completed because of omitted pages, "the creation of another postseason Division I men's basketball tournament that materially diminishes the status" ... I think the P5 breaking off from the NCAA in a manner that member schools may no longer be in the Tournament adversely affects the Broadcaster.

Hypothetically, say the p5 segregates itself in football only. How does the NCAA allows them back under the umbrella for other sports including basketball? The NCAA becomes a paper tiger slaving to the whim of the P5. It is a slippery slope from there to other institutions outright ignoring their "governing body" because there are 2 different explicitly stated sets of rules for these 65 arbitrarily thrown together teams vs. the other 1100 universities (Oh yeah, we're still talking about not-for-profit institutions of higher learning, no?).

So there goes that $40 Million plus a severely negative renegotiation to the Basketball Tournament contract.

If anything truly significant is to happen, I foresee a bevy of anti-trust suits coming to pass. It's a bad time for College sports, regardless if UConn is invited to the Big Ten or ACC).
Look...I'm not trying to be a , but the number doesn't exist because the NCAA does not make/or makes negligible amount of money from football -- that's all I'm saying. I'm not doing "my research" because it's just not there -- you brought up bogus numbers and I asked you to clarify. Now that that's settled let's move on to the real issue here...

The p5 def has the leverage they need with the NCAA to make football exempt (or autonomous) because they can breakaway altogether if they wanted and that would destroy the NCAA basketball tournament/revenue for the non-P5 schools.

We c ked Husky25 and it's a damn shame.
 
We just need the P5 to agree on having the same number (16) of conference members before they take off from the rest of the G5.
 
.-.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,333
Messages
4,564,900
Members
10,464
Latest member
Rollskies27


Top Bottom