For the 2007 NCAA tournament, the Big East will be receiving $14,856,576, based upon 84 shares earned from 2001-2006 at $176,864 per share. 84 shares = 10 from 2001 + 12 from 2002 + 14 from 2003 + 16 from 2004 + 13 from 2005 + 19 from 2006.

For 2008, each share will be worth approximately $191,000. If the Big East can earn 16 shares this year, with 10 dropping off from 2001, next year's take would be 90 shares x $191,000 = $17.2 million. Conferences earn one share for each tournament bid and one for every win in the tournament except play-ins and games in the Final Four.

The value of shares is expected to increase to $206,000 in 2009, $223,000 in 2010, $240,000 in 2011, $260,000 in 2012, and $280,000 in 2013 based upon the current CBS contract that expires after the 2013 NCAA tournament.

As time goes on, hopefully the conference will be able to average 16+ shares per year with its new membership, which will ultimately give the Big East an average of 100 shares per year. Remember, the former C-USA schools had to leave their shares behind, as did the ACC defects. If the Big East was using the shares earned by its current members only, it would have 102 shares for 2007, worth approximately $18 million. With the huge increases in the value per share budgeted over the next seven years, the Big East's revenues from the Basketball fund would be approximately $28,000,000 for the 2013 tournament if it had 100 shares at that time.

Note that all of this money is over and above travel expenses, which are funded from a separate account.

Finally, based upon the budgeted value of Basketball Fund shares, each bid, and each tournament game won this year (excluding play-ins and Final Four games) will be worth $1.4 million over the six year life of the share created by such bid or win ($191,000 + $206,000 + $223,000 + $240,000 + $260,000 + $280,000). So, go everybody!

OrangeFan, thanks for all of that good information.

I hadn't realized that there was a separate fund to pay for expenses. I don't think that there is any such fund for expenses in bowl games. So, when comparing football & basketball revenue, basketball pay-outs are 100% revenue, but football pay-outs are gross revenue from which expenses must be deducted to arrive at the net. Is that correct?

I read some where but don't remember where that the BE deducts the expenses of sending their teams from the bowl pot and then distributes the funds with a larger share to the teams that actually played in the bowls. Example the BCS team got some where around 3.5 mil, the Gator rep 2.0 mil, minor bowl players 1.5 mil a piece and those that sat home a lower cut. I can't remember the exact payouts but you can get an idea of the payout scheme. Expenses deducted first and the payouts aren't evenly distributed like some other conferences. The BE puts incentive in being a winner but does not short change the teams at the bottom. Everyone has been on the low end or will find themselves there sooner or latter. The BE takes care of everyone but leaves in the incentives to be a winner.

_________________
SOUTH CAROLINA GAMECOCKS - SEC
RUTGERS SCARLET KNIGHTS - BIG EAST / AMERICAN ATHLETIC CONFERENCE / BIG TEN

If what Orangefan says is true - then yes. Football payouts does not include the cost to take the team, cheerleaders, etc. Most schools that get the minimum payout (or what used to be the minimum payout of 750k) barely break even. If you goto the thread about conference revenue, I posted the bowl payouts.

An interesting tidbit from that:
The USA Today notes that each Big 10 team will get about $2 million. This means that conference shares and travel expenses deducted $1.3 million per team.

People just don't realize how much the BB TV contract is worth ($6 BILLION over 11 years). Its just that the NCAA only redistributes 25% (?) of that revenue back to the schools in the form of credits. The rest goes to scholarships, etc.

You are correct. Bowl revenues are gross amounts from which travel expenses must be deducted. The requirement that bowls payout at least $750,000, which was recently eliminated, was based in part on the thought that this was a reasonable amount to cover travel expenses. As someone noted, the Big Ten actually allowed an average of over $1.2 million for travel expenses before distributing around $22 million net bowl revenues to its members from this last season.

NCAA tournament revenues are huge, way way more than the BCS, and unlike the BCS are scheduled to grow dramatically over the next 5 years. NCAA Basketball > $500 million per year, while the BCS is > $100 million. The NCAA money is distributed in a variety of way, the Basketball Fund being only 25% or so. The rest is distributed to conferences and schools on "broad based" principals like number of sports sponsored and number of scholarship athletes, as well as to support general expenses of the NCAA and its conferences. See http://www.ncaa.org/releases/monthlyTeleconferences/2004/200403RevenueDistrNotes.html and http://www1.ncaa.org/finance/revenue_distribution_plan and http://www1.ncaa.org/finance/5-yr_conf_summaries/Total_Dist2006.htm

Because Bowl revenues are gross, only the Big East's BCS bid and its Gator/Sun Bowl bids actually generate revenue to cover program expenses. The rest are break even or, in the case of the Texas Bowl, a loss to the conference. This is why it is critical for the BE to find secondary bowls with bigger payouts and to stop sharing them with ND.

For a long time I've cratched my head to figure out why the money alone doesn't drive college football into a national championship play-off. I would have to think that a football generate a ton of money.

The argument has always been that you're not going to get fans to go to multiple games. One bowl game is a big enough expenditure when you consider airplane tickets, hotels, meals, etc. in addition to game tickets themselves.

I don't think that this argument holds water because I think that would happen is that early round games would be held at regional locations just like the basketball tournament - including northern locations in the East & in the Midwest. 90 % of the bowls are now held in warm weather locations, which is what makes them so expensive & why Southern schools travel to them in greater numbers than Northern fans. With domed stadiums in Northern locations like Indianapolis, Pontiac (MI), & Syracuse - & more sure to come - there's no reason that games couldn't be held in the North. Not to mention the fact that the NFL play-offs are held in outdoor stadiums in the North & still sell out.

The other reason why the negative argument doesn't hold up is that as teams progress deeper into the tournament, the games would sell out just because they would be such big attractions. Ticket sales would not depend on attendance by fans of the participating schools. Tickets for the final four & the NC game are in such demand that a lottery is held a year in advance. The same is true in football.

There is a completely bogus arument that the presidents throw out when they claim that students will miss class time. Since the tournament couls be held during the same time period as the current bowls, we're talking intersession. No classes! It couldn't be a better time. Besides, the presidents don't utter a peep about missed class time during the basketball tournament or for the Olumpic sports.

From a business point of view there is a problem with going up against the NFL play-offs. But now that we see increasing numbers of week night games, that problem should be solvable.

The real obstacle I think is control. I've read that presidents of the BCS schools would rather have 100% of a pool of money 1/3 the size than to generate 3 times the gross revenues but give up control. I'd like to think that this issue can be worked out.

The bigger issue I think is that bowl games generate a lot of off-the-books revenue by giving the school a chance to wine & dine big donors at a pleasant climate for a nice winter vacation. I don't know how to solve that one.

I wish we could get by the problems & have a nice 16 team tournament.