|
Post by Yotes on Mar 18, 2019 20:17:38 GMT -6
I really wish the NIT would expand their field to 64 teams similar to the WNIT and then we could get rid of the CIT & CBI. But then you'd have too many teams that care about being in the tournament. Better not risk it.
|
|
|
Post by Yote 53 on Mar 19, 2019 8:13:48 GMT -6
You could be right. Here’s what I found, though: www.apnews.com/753584516cd449b18c47512fb50cedb2"...Units are earned every game a team appears in, with the exception of the first game played by an automatic qualifier and the NCAA championship game." I think I mis-read this line. If this description is true, then 1-bid leagues like the Summit only get a payout with a win or an at-large bid. That's news to me. I thought we were getting 1.6/1.7 mil each year for just having an auto-bid. That sucks. So I'd agree with you that the play-in might actually be best-case scenario to try to get the payout. The way I read this is that if you are an autobid and get put in the First Four, the conference only gets paid NCAA Tourney money if you win that game. So NDSU needs to win this game or the Summit gets nothing. I guess the First Four truly is a play-in game and not part of the actual tournament.
|
|
|
Post by kiyoat on Mar 19, 2019 9:02:39 GMT -6
You could be right. Here’s what I found, though: www.apnews.com/753584516cd449b18c47512fb50cedb2"...Units are earned every game a team appears in, with the exception of the first game played by an automatic qualifier and the NCAA championship game." I think I mis-read this line. If this description is true, then 1-bid leagues like the Summit only get a payout with a win or an at-large bid. That's news to me. I thought we were getting 1.6/1.7 mil each year for just having an auto-bid. That sucks. So I'd agree with you that the play-in might actually be best-case scenario to try to get the payout. The way I read this is that if you are an autobid and get put in the First Four, the conference only gets paid NCAA Tourney money if you win that game. So NDSU needs to win this game or the Summit gets nothing. I guess the First Four truly is a play-in game and not part of the actual tournament. Now I'm second-guessing that. Even though this is an AP article, the WashPo article Yotes linked basically says the opposite, that an appearance in the play-in gets you a payout too. I'd have to do a deeper dive to confirm anything. The NCAA makes it too complicated IMO.
|
|
|
Post by gorabbits on Mar 19, 2019 11:26:08 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by aldewitt on Mar 19, 2019 16:22:22 GMT -6
If the Bison win will the conference get a pay day for playing Duke as well.?
|
|
|
Post by kiyoat on Mar 19, 2019 16:53:45 GMT -6
If the Bison win will the conference get a pay day for playing Duke as well.? Yes. Because the conference has an auto-bid we are guaranteed one payout every year. Even though this is divided over 6 years, since we get a new one every year, they all add up to six 1/6 payments, or about 1.7 million for the conference every year (divided amongst members). So around 200K per member, assuming we distribute equally. so the NDSU win over Oklahoma in 2014 has garnered an additional 1.7 mil that year, or an extra $280,000 for the conference each year from 2014-2020 I think. So instead of $200,000 per school we have been getting around $230,000 per school each year. If NDSU wins the opening round this year it will earn an additional 1.7 mil this year. That means our payout per school would be around $260,000 per school for a year, then go back to $230,000 per school per year for 5 more years. (when the Oklahoma win payout is done) If we were to ever get a sweet 16 appearance, or multiple teams in, or winning first round games regularly, the payouts would start to get serious, but I'll take an extra 30K or 60K any day, and twice on (selection) sundays.
|
|
|
Post by aldewitt on Mar 19, 2019 17:38:23 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by kiyoat on Mar 19, 2019 20:10:59 GMT -6
I guess it depends on whether you think SDSU and NDSU deserved the unearned payouts they got when joining the conference. Oakland won a tournament game in 2005, so the share was bigger than the minimum when you guys joined.
Conversely, Members leaving a conference don’t get to take shares with them regardless of who “earned” them. It stays with the conference.
|
|
|
Post by aldewitt on Mar 20, 2019 6:00:03 GMT -6
Good point.
How about the SDSU game last night. Does the NIT pay a share to the Summit? That was a great game. Down 19-0 I lost interest only to be surprised by the finish. They had a chance to win it but the 3 pointer is always a gamble over a reliable drive to the basket.
The Summit gained some respect for their efforts and the longhorns are fortunate to advance. It’s obvious the league is getting better and probably more attractive to potential recruits.
SDSU has been the dominate program these last few years. Their appearances must have added 1.7 million each to the annuity money. In fact it appears the Summit is assured this payout every year because of the auto bid. Another team means another share of the pot has to be cut out from existing members. There is value in membership especially when a perspective is not really needed.
I guess its correct to say who cares. the first round money is paid no matter who goes. If I understand correctly It’s only when a team advances that they begin to earn money for the Summit beyond guarantees. That’s when we should all get behind them.
|
|
|
Post by Yotes on Mar 20, 2019 6:41:04 GMT -6
I guess it depends on whether you think SDSU and NDSU deserved the unearned payouts they got when joining the conference. Oakland won a tournament game in 2005, so the share was bigger than the minimum when you guys joined. Conversely, Members leaving a conference don’t get to take shares with them regardless of who “earned” them. It stays with the conference. I wouldn't be surprised if new members don't get their full share of revenue until a few years after joining. I know Nebraska wasn't getting a full share their first few years in the Big Ten.
|
|
|
Post by kiyoat on Mar 20, 2019 7:21:04 GMT -6
I guess it depends on whether you think SDSU and NDSU deserved the unearned payouts they got when joining the conference. Oakland won a tournament game in 2005, so the share was bigger than the minimum when you guys joined. Conversely, Members leaving a conference don’t get to take shares with them regardless of who “earned” them. It stays with the conference. I wouldn't be surprised if new members don't get their full share of revenue until a few years after joining. I know Nebraska wasn't getting a full share their first few years in the Big Ten. You may be thinking of the Big Ten Network revenue. That's a different animal entirely. Much bigger honey-pot as well. In any case, conferences have the latitude to share all their revenue streams however they collectively choose. That can be a source of contention, though. I know the uneven TV money distribution in the Big 12 was controversial at the time Nebraska left. So I wouldn't be surprised if Douple and the Summit choose to downplay it or not publicize it if the revenues aren't distributed equally. Maybe he has just never been asked. Looks like a job for our local trouble-maker John Gaskins! I'd love to see an itemized budget for the Summit. Partly for the NCAA payouts and revenue distribution, but I'd also like to see what they make from the Summit League Tourney. There are costs as well as profits, but I'd think they come out well with the high attendance.
|
|
|
Post by Yote 53 on Mar 20, 2019 7:55:15 GMT -6
Augie will just be another mouth to feed. We'll all take a cut for a school that doesn't bring much to the conference.
|
|
|
Post by usdtator on Mar 20, 2019 8:04:01 GMT -6
Speaking of payouts... do we get anything for the Yote and bunny women making the NCAA Tournament? Both have potential to win a game or two or three...
|
|
|
Post by kiyoat on Mar 20, 2019 8:50:24 GMT -6
Speaking of payouts... do we get anything for the Yote and bunny women making the NCAA Tournament? Both have potential to win a game or two or three... Nope. The women's tournament doesn't turn a profit, so there is no revenue to share. It's a shame, but really, there are very few college sports that make a profit. The Men's tournament is an exception because of the intense interest in it creating TV/ advertising/ ticket revenues. The gambling has been a big reason for it's popularity, too. Power-5 football is obviously the other major exception, but they have really squandered the potential profits the conferences could be making with a larger postseason tournament IMO.
|
|
|
Post by kiyoat on Mar 20, 2019 9:04:45 GMT -6
Good point. How about the SDSU game last night. Does the NIT pay a share to the Summit? It is my understanding that the NIT reimburses participating schools for travel expenses, and they also get a share of the profits, once expenses are determined. This is based on # games played, like the NCAAs, but the amount is far smaller. Another distinction is that it is a one-time payment, and is NOT shared with other conference members. So it only benefits SDSU this year. Apparently host-schools also get a % of gate revenue. This is different than the WNIT, where the host gets to keep all gate revenue, but must pay a "bid" for the privilege of hosting. Most schools will lose money on the bids, but the pooled bid money gets re-distributed for all the teams's travel expenses reimbursement.
|
|