http://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/22678988/ncaa-tops-1-billion-revenue-first
Good luck bringing it down. MONEY.
Good luck bringing it down. MONEY.
ncaa tops $1 billion in revenue for the first time
- Thread starter BobPSU92
- Start date
http://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/22678988/ncaa-tops-1-billion-revenue-first
Good luck bringing it down. MONEY.
A billion dollars in revenue off of an “amateur” workforce. Hell, the NCAA ought to be able to give out scholarships to just about every undergrad.
Another $160.5 million went to the Division I performance fund, which awards conferences based on how many teams play in the NCAA tournament and how far they advance. Units are paid out over six years.
I never realized conferences were awarded for performance in the tournament. No wonder the NCAA was able to restore everyone's eligibility in less than 24 h from having dinner and taking loans from an agent. Yet it takes years to do a investigation into infractions, well unless you are PSU and investigate yourself.
I never realized conferences were awarded for performance in the tournament. No wonder the NCAA was able to restore everyone's eligibility in less than 24 h from having dinner and taking loans from an agent. Yet it takes years to do a investigation into infractions, well unless you are PSU and investigate yourself.
I would love to see their income statement and balance sheet. I wonder how much cash or equivalent they are sitting on. It’s time the Big Conferences created their own true non-profit coalition. They’ve effectively duplicated the NCAA at their own levels.
http://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/22678988/ncaa-tops-1-billion-revenue-first
Good luck bringing it down. MONEY.
Yet another example of why nonprofit tax exemption reform is sorely needed within the educational industrial complex.
Found the NCAA's latest audited financial statements (fiscal year ended August 31, 2017). There's way too much information of interest...in the numbers but also in the footnotes. Definitely scan the footnotes. Here's a few things:
For instance, the figures in the Tweet earlier noted the amounts were for the NCAA tourney (the lion's share likely), but they cover other championships as well. Hope you like CBS/Turner's broadcasts. The contract with them runs thru 2032.
The NCAA headquarters facility is leased for $1 per year? Courtesy of the good citizens of Indiana. I'm guessing the NCAA thought the terms were so good that they amended the original lease term from 60 years to 80 years.
No clues as to how well the NCAA pays its employees, but the retirement plan at the NCAA is pretty nice. No make that, exceptional. A defined contribution plan that contributes 10% of your compensation each year to your account, plus the chance to add an extra 4% as a match if you save 5% on your own. Wow 14%. Compare that to your company plan.
And, to my original thought earlier as to how much cash and equivalent they had: $537 million. I think that's half a billion, which is peanuts if you are the federal government. BTW, it is down from $721 million the prior year because they distributed $200 million to members schools, perhaps because that rolled up bankroll was starting to look too gaudy.
If you're interested:
http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/2016-17NCAAFin_FinancialStatement_20180129.pdf
For instance, the figures in the Tweet earlier noted the amounts were for the NCAA tourney (the lion's share likely), but they cover other championships as well. Hope you like CBS/Turner's broadcasts. The contract with them runs thru 2032.
The NCAA headquarters facility is leased for $1 per year? Courtesy of the good citizens of Indiana. I'm guessing the NCAA thought the terms were so good that they amended the original lease term from 60 years to 80 years.
No clues as to how well the NCAA pays its employees, but the retirement plan at the NCAA is pretty nice. No make that, exceptional. A defined contribution plan that contributes 10% of your compensation each year to your account, plus the chance to add an extra 4% as a match if you save 5% on your own. Wow 14%. Compare that to your company plan.
And, to my original thought earlier as to how much cash and equivalent they had: $537 million. I think that's half a billion, which is peanuts if you are the federal government. BTW, it is down from $721 million the prior year because they distributed $200 million to members schools, perhaps because that rolled up bankroll was starting to look too gaudy.
If you're interested:
http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/2016-17NCAAFin_FinancialStatement_20180129.pdf
A billion in revenue off of we the consumer. We the consumer are the money tree.
I guess this makes a good story but NFL gave up tax exempt status in 2014. Also since the teams have paid taxes for decades and the vast majority of revenue goes to the teams, it’s a non story.
We the consumer wouldn’t be spending much if any money on college athletics if it weren’t for the high caliber of athlete on the field.
Where does the money come from? TV.
Where does TV get the money? Advertisers.
Where do the advertisers get their money? _ _.
advertisers get their $$$ from companies who sell products/services to us the consumers. advertisers just look at the eyeballs and the conversion rate to purchase. actually $1B in ad money is not that big a gig. remember Google is almost entirely made up of ad revenue.
My point is. The money comes from the consumer when we buy the advertisers products.
Why do advertisers buy ads? Ratings.
Who generates the ratings? The viewer.
Why is the viewer watching? The athletes.
Otherwise you could put anything on TV and generate big ad dollars. But that’s not how it works. If the product is bad, people won’t watch. And the product, like it or not, is the athleticism of the student-athletes.
I get your point. We are the money tree. I agree with you, but I think it’s a bit more nuanced than that. If we’re the money tree then the student-athletes are the roots.
I disagree...it’s the schools that people watch regardless of the athletes. For example, Pitt football could have the best athletes in the world and Penn State would still get more eyeballs. The athletes change every year, but the schools don’t.
Except the bulk of “eyeballs” watching a Penn State game aren’t alums - I assume that’s where you’re going with this. Penn State doesn’t have millions of living alums. No school does. Most people watch for the level of competition. For example, 10.2 million people watched Penn State and Washington. Obviously the vast majority weren’t alums. If Pitt had better teams and were competing for a playoff spot - and had a history of doing so - they’d pack that stadium and their games would get great ratings on TV. “If you build it... .” Now if you’re saying most people watch Penn State because of the history of the program, I agree with you. But again that history - all of those great gridiron exploits - we’re because of the level of athlete Joe was able to recruit. It always goes back to the quality of the product - and as weird as it may sound the product is the student-athlete.
Case in point: How often is the BJC packed for a Penn State basketball game? How about Lubrano Field for a baseball game?
My point is, if the level of athlete dropped across the board, people would still watch. Of course there are teams that fans don’t watch because they suck, but if all schools implemented strict academic guidelines that limited the athletic ability of every team, people would still watch. If it was all about athletic ability, people would only watch professional sports.
I see. That’s an interesting point. While I agree that people would still watch with a “down grade” in athlete, I don’t believe the viewership would be near the level that it is now. A down grade in athleticism would probably mean that a lot of people would stop watching. Look at the FCS level. There’s a reason those teams are not on TV very often. They don’t draw the eyeballs. Would non-alums to the tune of the millions that currently watch still watch, or would they go away over time?
I don’t think most average fans can tell the difference between great athletes and average athletes...and if they’re all in the same level of athletic ability, they would still watch. The FCS level schools don’t get the eyeballs because they don’t have the history or the name. Not too many Youngstown State fans in Ohio but there are a ton of Ohio State fans and as long as Ohio State is playing, their fans will watch because it’s Ohio State. Even when the NBA was getting a ton of kids right out of high school, the big name basketball schools still were getting people watching.
