NY Times on the Fox contract

The home for Big East hoops

Re: NY Times on the Fox contract

Postby SixTwentySix » Tue Mar 12, 2013 10:51 am

BillEsq wrote:Also remember the schools will not be getting 4 million a team.

You have to pay league management- a few million a year.
League operations and offices - depending on where located thousands a year...
Zebras for sports all sports even the non rev- maybe a million or so a year
running tournaments in non-rev sports- a about a million a year.
There is advertising and legal expenses...
And this is being simple and generous with the costs, i could go on and on.
(This also does not take into account that some of the contract may be paid upfront by Fox to cover the start up costs. This is highly likely the reason for the bump and if true would reduce the yearly totals for the media contract. That said as i have no numbers to base it on and i want to make this as simple as possible i did not even compute this possibility into my numbers.)

For simple math assuming the league takes 5 million off the top a year for operating expenses. you get per the NYT article $3,666,666 a year per team for 10 teams and $3,750,000 a year per team for 12 teams. or 90,000 a year more for 12. Plus the savings you get by being able to field proper Non-rev sports, plus the potential for earning more NCAA units. 12 still makes more financial sense.

Overall still a good take for the conference. I think if anything can really be obtained out of all this, it is that the schools will be making a significant amount of money in the deal and that Fox is the driving force and is willing to pay to get what it wants.


Good post Bill, this is all very true. However the flipside is that there are also multiple sources of income as well to cover those expenses, not just the tv money. Villanova for one, has a revenue of over 7 million and they're making 1.5 million a year on the current tv deal. It all balances out, and in the end the new tv deal is still a considerable increase.

One thing to note from your post though, is that all of those expenses you pointed out (management, offices, etc) wont really change whether there's 10 or 12 teams. For example, the commissioner will make the same regardless. So having 12 teams, rather than 10, will actually mean they'll have to contribute less to those expenses, earning them a slightly higher profit.
Villanova
User avatar
SixTwentySix
 
Posts: 113
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2013 1:02 am

Re: NY Times on the Fox contract

Sponsor

Sponsor
 

Re: NY Times on the Fox contract

Postby xu95 » Tue Mar 12, 2013 12:05 pm

BillEsq wrote:Also remember the schools will not be getting 4 million a team.

You have to pay league management- a few million a year.
League operations and offices - depending on where located thousands a year...
Zebras for sports all sports even the non rev- maybe a million or so a year
running tournaments in non-rev sports- a about a million a year.
There is advertising and legal expenses...
And this is being simple and generous with the costs, i could go on and on.
(This also does not take into account that some of the contract may be paid upfront by Fox to cover the start up costs. This is highly likely the reason for the bump and if true would reduce the yearly totals for the media contract. That said as i have no numbers to base it on and i want to make this as simple as possible i did not even compute this possibility into my numbers.)

For simple math assuming the league takes 5 million off the top a year for operating expenses. you get per the NYT article $3,666,666 a year per team for 10 teams and $3,750,000 a year per team for 12 teams. or 90,000 a year more for 12. Plus the savings you get by being able to field proper Non-rev sports, plus the potential for earning more NCAA units. 12 still makes more financial sense.

Overall still a good take for the conference. I think if anything can really be obtained out of all this, it is that the schools will be making a significant amount of money in the deal and that Fox is the driving force and is willing to pay to get what it wants.


I'm with you. What this does do though, is allow them to take their time in choosing 11 and 12. I know some people on here claim that all five have been chosen, but I don't believe it. If they had, I would think they would all join this year.

I don't believe the "we are just trying to help out the A10 by not stealing all of the teams from them at once".
xu95
 
Posts: 115
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2012 9:29 am

Re: NY Times on the Fox contract

Postby xu95 » Tue Mar 12, 2013 12:07 pm

SixTwentySix wrote:
BillEsq wrote:Also remember the schools will not be getting 4 million a team.

You have to pay league management- a few million a year.
League operations and offices - depending on where located thousands a year...
Zebras for sports all sports even the non rev- maybe a million or so a year
running tournaments in non-rev sports- a about a million a year.
There is advertising and legal expenses...
And this is being simple and generous with the costs, i could go on and on.
(This also does not take into account that some of the contract may be paid upfront by Fox to cover the start up costs. This is highly likely the reason for the bump and if true would reduce the yearly totals for the media contract. That said as i have no numbers to base it on and i want to make this as simple as possible i did not even compute this possibility into my numbers.)

For simple math assuming the league takes 5 million off the top a year for operating expenses. you get per the NYT article $3,666,666 a year per team for 10 teams and $3,750,000 a year per team for 12 teams. or 90,000 a year more for 12. Plus the savings you get by being able to field proper Non-rev sports, plus the potential for earning more NCAA units. 12 still makes more financial sense.

Overall still a good take for the conference. I think if anything can really be obtained out of all this, it is that the schools will be making a significant amount of money in the deal and that Fox is the driving force and is willing to pay to get what it wants.


Good post Bill, this is all very true. However the flipside is that there are also multiple sources of income as well to cover those expenses, not just the tv money. Villanova for one, has a revenue of over 7 million and they're making 1.5 million a year on the current tv deal. It all balances out, and in the end the new tv deal is still a considerable increase.

One thing to note from your post though, is that all of those expenses you pointed out (management, offices, etc) wont really change whether there's 10 or 12 teams. For example, the commissioner will make the same regardless. So having 12 teams, rather than 10, will actually mean they'll have to contribute less to those expenses, earning them a slightly higher profit.


Also very good points. I think they eventually get to 12, but I don't think they will feel rushed to do it.
xu95
 
Posts: 115
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2012 9:29 am

Re: NY Times on the Fox contract

Postby BillEsq » Tue Mar 12, 2013 12:59 pm

SixTwentySix wrote:


Good post Bill, this is all very true. However the flipside is that there are also multiple sources of income as well to cover those expenses, not just the tv money. Villanova for one, has a revenue of over 7 million and they're making 1.5 million a year on the current tv deal. It all balances out, and in the end the new tv deal is still a considerable increase.

One thing to note from your post though, is that all of those expenses you pointed out (management, offices, etc) wont really change whether there's 10 or 12 teams. For example, the commissioner will make the same regardless. So having 12 teams, rather than 10, will actually mean they'll have to contribute less to those expenses, earning them a slightly higher profit.[/quote]

Remember the 10 teams will have to pay more in as a percentage as they get 100 million less. Its a pain in the butt formula to explain and i'm not a math guy. However as long as my excel document is working those are the numbers. It is interesting that Fox just keeps adding 100 million to each of the proposals in the rumors, if they continue doing that and not increasing the tier percentage for 12 vs 10 teams it eventually makes 10 teams more profitable.

If your curious a 400/500 million 10v 12 split makes 12 teams the clear the best option financially. you need to get to about 700/800 million to make 10 teams the clear best option. 500/600 favors 12 and 600/700 would favor 10. This is of course not taking into account the hundreds of variables that could shift the numbers either way and the fact that I only have rumors to go with.
BillEsq
 
Posts: 812
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2013 6:30 pm

Previous

Return to Big East basketball message board

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: xusandy and 11 guests