KCRag Forum

So, Big 12 = $21.5 million per team...
and SEC = $22.5 million per team.

I know I am oversimplifying things, but I also think it is misleading to equate MU's doubling of its income to the switch to the SEC. Big 12 schools have made similar jumps in income.

Acutally, I think the Big 12 numbers are higher because WV and TCU don't get full shares yet. That leaves more for the other 8 schools.

AllThingsKC wrote:Acutally, I think the Big 12 numbers are higher because WV and TCU don't get full shares yet. That leaves more for the other 8 schools.

Not the way I figured it. 215/10=21.5. I just did the basic math of total revenue/# of teams. If you factor in that WVU and TCU are being phased in, you can take the ~$19 million cited in the article between them out of the $215 million. That leaves (215-19)/(10-2) = $24.5 million/team. From that perspective, those who stayed in the Big 12 average out to making more than the average SEC team. I realize it isn't a completely even split, but I was just pointing out that the article seemed to imply that MU was making more money than they could have in the Big 12 (when in fact the average is comperable). In my opinion, the phasing in of WVU and TCU should not be considered when comparing the revenue. The only thing that really matters is the total revenue per team.

.

pash wrote:No, what matters is who gets what. The Big 12 doesn't pool all of its revene and split it evenly, does it? If Texas is still getting an outsized piece of the pie, dividing total revenue by number of teams is meaningless.

And kind of the point as to why MU (CU, NU and TAM) left.

shinatoo wrote:

pash wrote:No, what matters is who gets what. The Big 12 doesn't pool all of its revene and split it evenly, does it? If Texas is still getting an outsized piece of the pie, dividing total revenue by number of teams is meaningless.

And kind of the point as to why MU (CU, NU and TAM) left.

KU got 300k less from the Big 12 this year than MU did from the SEC (20.8 vs. 21.1). Just sayin' that so far, there isn't the great divide that has been promised. MU's overall revenue increased 50%, but KU still had $17 million more than MU in overall revenue. People keep making blind statements about the SEC being a financial windfall, but they aren't comparing apples to apples. The promise is that the next SEC contract will create more of a divide, but so far, it isn't really there that I can tell (from KU's perspective).

bobbyhawks wrote:The promise is that the next SEC contract will create more of a divide, but so far, it isn't really there that I can tell (from KU's perspective).

This is pretty accurate. There hasn't been much a difference....yet. One reason why MU (and others) left was because of the LHN. The SEC Network will launch in August and Clay Travis projects it will make $600 million in the first year, if the SEC does everything right. So, it's likely we're start seeing a bigger increase by July 2015.

Just being in the SEC marginally helped Mizzou's revenue. But the SEC Network is expected to make it rain.

harbinger911 wrote:The move also got MU 10X more national exposure with SEC Football.

Yep, Mizzou athletics has had a pretty high profile in the last few weeks.

harbinger911 wrote:The move also got MU 10X more national exposure with SEC Football.

The thing is, the first year they had exposure because it was new. The second year they had exposure because they were winning. If they continue to win, they will have the exposure just as they did when they were winning in the Big 12. But if they fade (we will see if the SEC East is any better next year than it was this year) in a 14 team conference, and losing DGB in addition to those they lost off this year's team, chances are good they will, they will be off the radar. How much exposure does Kentucky football get? The Mississippi schools? The same will be true of Texas A&M post JF.

Haven't followed too closely so wondering the number of draftees from each conference? I did see a report this is the first year since the mid 30's that no player from Univ. of Texas was drafted.

aknowledgeableperson wrote:Haven't followed too closely so wondering the number of draftees from each conference? I did see a report this is the first year since the mid 30's that no player from Univ. of Texas was drafted.

SEC -- 49
ACC -- 42
Pac-12 -- 34
Big Ten -- 30
Big 12 -- 17
Mountain West --16
American -- 12
Conference USA -- 9
Independents -- 9
MAC -- 8
Sun Belt -- 4

pretty pathetic showing by the BigXII.

I would say, "I told you so," but when you're right as often as I am, you don't have to keep saying it.

What an upgrade.

AllThingsKC wrote:I would say, "I told you so," but when you're right as often as I am, you don't have to keep saying it.

What an upgrade.

I'm sorry, what are you talking about?

National perception of the Big 12.

AllThingsKC wrote:National perception of the Big 12.

We care about the national perception, why?

Well, clearly the Big 12 doesn't care about national perception. How's that working out for them?

worry more about stopping the run than national perception.

Who's worried?

I don't really know what the national perception of the BigXII is. I assume we're talking about the Big 5 (SEC, BXII, B10, ACC, Pac12). The perception is likely consistent with how Kansas City is perceived. flyover country. In reality, it's quite a bit better than people on the Coasts care to acknowledge.

Academically, I imagine the BigXII is viewed as 4th. B10, Pac12, ACC, BXII, SEC.

Athletically, BXII is right in the middle.
--Basketball: B10/ACC, BXII, Pac12, SEC
--Football: SEC, BXII/Pac12/B10, ACC

Monetarily, the BigXII institutions are on par with everybody else, right there in the $20-25mil range per institution.