NIL Hoops Budgets - Big 10 v. Big East

It's part assumption, but they don't need to hit their big donors for NIL for football either

RU-ROCS said:

I've read numerous times on this board, most recently in yesterday's Ask the Staff thread, that the basketball only schools of the Big East can spend significantly more on hoops because they have no football. But I have never seen the math that shows that to be true except for the exceptional case of UConn, which generates tremendous revenue apart from the Big East TV deal. True the Big East has no football, but their media rights per team share is only $7.5M - a small fraction of the $75M per team in the Big Ten. Even if Big 10 Hoops teams get credit for only 10% of media rights revenue, they are on equal footing with these hoops-only schools in terms of media revenue. Plus, the Big 10 consistently generates higher ticket sales than the Big East with large on-campus arenas compared to the smaller arenas of the Big East. And, some Big East teams, like Georgetown and SHU, have to rent pro arenas at an additional cost and they can't come close to filling them up. So, what am I missing? Indeed, there is only 1 Big East team in the top-ten revenue generators in college basketball and the rest are all schools with football (including 4 Big 10 schools): https://www.2adays.com/blog/top-10-division-i-basketball-programs-by-revenue/

Where is all of this supposedly superior Big East revenue share coming from?

Click to expand...

If the question is where does the money come from… it’s just coming from the university. Some schools are investing to compete and others are not. Any Big East school can spend the majority of Rev Share on basketball only. Big Ten and SEC are spending 70-80% of Rev Share on Football, which is eating the majority of the $20.5m cap. That also doesn’t mean that Big East schools automatically have more money. Legit NIL deals can make up the difference but every football school is starting off at a disadvantage when it comes to Rev Share.

What is real interesting is a small university without football is allowed to spend the full $20.5m Rev Share cap on basketball regardless of how much revenue they actually bring in. I don’t think anyone is doing that, but the fact that they’re allowed to shows the major disadvantage schools with football have.

RU-ROCS said:

I've read numerous times on this board, most recently in yesterday's Ask the Staff thread, that the basketball only schools of the Big East can spend significantly more on hoops because they have no football. But I have never seen the math that shows that to be true except for the exceptional case of UConn, which generates tremendous revenue apart from the Big East TV deal. True the Big East has no football, but their media rights per team share is only $7.5M - a small fraction of the $75M per team in the Big Ten. Even if Big 10 Hoops teams get credit for only 10% of media rights revenue, they are on equal footing with these hoops-only schools in terms of media revenue. Plus, the Big 10 consistently generates higher ticket sales than the Big East with large on-campus arenas compared to the smaller arenas of the Big East. And, some Big East teams, like Georgetown and SHU, have to rent pro arenas at an additional cost and they can't come close to filling them up. So, what am I missing? Indeed, there is only 1 Big East team in the top-ten revenue generators in college basketball and the rest are all schools with football (including 4 Big 10 schools): https://www.2adays.com/blog/top-10-division-i-basketball-programs-by-revenue/

Where is all of this supposedly superior Big East revenue share coming from?

Click to expand...

Boosters don't care about revenue. They care about winning. See Mike Repole. Even then, revenue doesn't have to be in the top when your biggest expense is basketball.

Big East is quite down and average this year...outside of UConn, and Johnnies and maybe Nova. only 3 should get in this year.

scarletrat99 said:

Big East is quite down and average this year...outside of UConn, and Johnnies and maybe Nova. only 3 should get in this year.

Click to expand...

Yup, so for all their so called $ advantages,they relatively suck.

I would expect a few more BE schools to go all in on Rev Share this offseason. I also see everyone across the country spending more as schools figure this out.

RU-ROCS said:

So the real issue is the cap of $20.5 M which prevents Big 10 teams from spending a proportionate share of the revenue their hoops teams generate to pay players, while Big East schools theoretically can spend their entire revenue to pay players (unlikely), because the vast majority of those schools do not even generate anywhere near $20.5M in total revenue on their hoops program. But that still requires significant deficit spending which I suspect most small schools do not wish to engage in unless big boosters bail them out.

Click to expand...

It should be a % of AD revenue.

The $20.5 was created as a % of the P4 schools.
Either include all FBS schools to determine the cap # or set a specific % and floating cap # for each individual school based on their revenue numbers.

Or set the cap at the sport specific level and not the AD level.


The problem is that all these solutions aim to make college atheltics a level playing field - and nobody (including Rutgers fans) actually want that.

The 20.5 revenue share is not enforced

number of programs allocate more to football and hoops than that because they can and want to win at all costs

BIG/SEC schools could leave rest of field to do their own tourneys end of year at the snap of a finger when/if should they choose. Power 2 playing along with smaller basketballcentric conferences giving as much or more money to basketball players for the time being until it doesn’t.

In less than 5 yrs the NCAA basketball setup and/or revenue rules will be different to address what the Power 2 schools see as the tail wagging the dog.

GO RU

A few ponts:

1. It's revenue sharing, not profit sharing. All of the P4 schools, especially B1G schools, bring in major revenue. Enough to easily be able to fund the full revenue share amount up to the cap of 20.5 mil. Profit sharing, or net income sharing, that accounts for revenue minus expenses, is a whole other matter and that's where RU suffers. But functionally we are at the cap so it doesn't matter what sources or how much revenue, we are at the cap.

2. Big East schools may not have enough revenue to fully fund the cap. But, not having football, they don't need to. The assumption is that P4 schools give about 15% of the revenue share to men's basketball. So about 3 million. So if they make enough revenue to float 3 mil they are on par, and if they can squeeze out more, then they can in theory be above a P4 school that is still capped but has to support football. But given all the P4 schools will be spending on backetball at 15% of the cap, and can't spend more on hoops unless they cut funds for football, if the Big East schools generate enough revenue to exceed 3 mil, they can spend more than 3 mil freely. Football creates a an infomral 3 mil cap for hoops that big East Schools don't have.

3. Boosters - Some of the top hoops schools have very strong and rich booster bases. This is not the revenue share from the school, this is separate NIL deals. If they have a big booster base all focused on hoops, the fear was that they could exceed the ability of some of the mid/lower tier P4 schools that have to spread the money around to football.