NCAA tourney is one of the largest sporting events of the year and brings in 1.1 billion dollars if I am not mistaken. Mark Emmert signed a deal that is at the very least half of what he could have received. One of the worst contracts in sports.
The NCAA Tourney is about 90% of the revenue the NCAA makes and I’ve seen where the NCAA distributes 60-66% of the revenue to the schools and holds onto the remaining 33-40%.
The allocation each conference receives is a predetermined number and how they distribute it is up to each conference. It is a 6 year unit based system to my understanding so KU is getting paid for the units every appearance in the past 6 years.
I bring this up with regards to realignment.
Are the big schools going about this the right way? Should the ACC get the same as the Ohio Valley? (is that a league?)
or should it be distributed another way? I think that is something to think about and something the networks think about. Say the NCAA does exist when the new contract comes up. They will absolutely take it to the market and get double the money at minimum. So the schools now get double the money.
or say the NCAA doesn’t exist; there will have to be some form of a governing body but it doesn’t have to be the ncaa and it doesn’t have to be as big of a group or as costly of a group.
How much are the schools costing themselves by allowing the ncaa to make poor negotiations and take so much money from them?
What happens if the big boys get rid of the ncaa and take more money. We will still pay oral roberts for getting in but does everyone else in the league deserve as much?
My question is, could this be a more lucrative option for all schools moving forward and a potential factor in realignment down the road. Does it make KU more appealing if conferences think the ncaa will eventually disappear or the basketball revenue will increase?
It won’t be football. Does it become a bigger factor than it is now? Is the NCAA worth 33-40% of the revenue?
https://sports.yahoo.com/ncaa-presi...-will-define-his-failed-tenure-232648011.html
https://www.wsj.com/articles/march-...most-schools-still-operate-in-red-11615545002
The NCAA Tourney is about 90% of the revenue the NCAA makes and I’ve seen where the NCAA distributes 60-66% of the revenue to the schools and holds onto the remaining 33-40%.
The allocation each conference receives is a predetermined number and how they distribute it is up to each conference. It is a 6 year unit based system to my understanding so KU is getting paid for the units every appearance in the past 6 years.
I bring this up with regards to realignment.
Are the big schools going about this the right way? Should the ACC get the same as the Ohio Valley? (is that a league?)
or should it be distributed another way? I think that is something to think about and something the networks think about. Say the NCAA does exist when the new contract comes up. They will absolutely take it to the market and get double the money at minimum. So the schools now get double the money.
or say the NCAA doesn’t exist; there will have to be some form of a governing body but it doesn’t have to be the ncaa and it doesn’t have to be as big of a group or as costly of a group.
How much are the schools costing themselves by allowing the ncaa to make poor negotiations and take so much money from them?
What happens if the big boys get rid of the ncaa and take more money. We will still pay oral roberts for getting in but does everyone else in the league deserve as much?
My question is, could this be a more lucrative option for all schools moving forward and a potential factor in realignment down the road. Does it make KU more appealing if conferences think the ncaa will eventually disappear or the basketball revenue will increase?
It won’t be football. Does it become a bigger factor than it is now? Is the NCAA worth 33-40% of the revenue?
https://sports.yahoo.com/ncaa-presi...-will-define-his-failed-tenure-232648011.html
https://www.wsj.com/articles/march-...most-schools-still-operate-in-red-11615545002
