Professional and College Basketball Forums banner

41 - 60 of 96 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,884 Posts
Thanks guys,. The only suggestion for a validations is the payout column for each team totals to the same number give or take a little as 41 time $257,807 = 10,570,087.

Not to bad in 10.57 Million for a down year plus 5 Mill for TV contract.
That’s what I was thinking, too. The A10 had a major rebuilding season, yet still managed to send three teams to the NCAAs, get two wins over the P5 while there, and take home five credits. By no means our best season, but considering where we thought we were in February or so, we’ll take it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,244 Posts
I also did that the teams that made the tourney did not get part of the pool.

so for this year URI, SBU and Davidson get 75% of their units and the other 11 teams split the 25%
Is that definitely how it works? I have a vague recollection of this being discussed before. If those that make the dance only get 75% of their shares and nothing from the others that make the dance, wouldn't that mean that in a year that 6 teams make it (not common, but has happened) that the 8 that don't make it earn more than those who did or at least some of those who did? Seems to me it would be more than those who get in, but don't win a game. I am sure that is not likely the case and I just doing some bad math.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,530 Posts
That's interesting Ace, but I don't think it'll work.

If 6 teams played one game, each would get a credit of 75% of $1.7 million = $1,275,000

The other 8 teams (under your thoughts) would split: $1.7 million X .25 X 6 / 8 teams = $318,750 per team.

If the 6 teams played more than one game, it would seem the math would follow along.

Edit: it also seems likely there's another provision if 1 of the 6 goes to the E8 and the others play one game. Maybe the other 5 share part of the 25% of the 1's additional games. I sure don't know.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,881 Posts
no one truly knows how the A10 splits credits, the presumption for years has been a 75/25 split
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,881 Posts
Is that definitely how it works? I have a vague recollection of this being discussed before. If those that make the dance only get 75% of their shares and nothing from the others that make the dance, wouldn't that mean that in a year that 6 teams make it (not common, but has happened) that the 8 that don't make it earn more than those who did or at least some of those who did? Seems to me it would be more than those who get in, but don't win a game. I am sure that is not likely the case and I just doing some bad math.
just did some math and it would take:
5 teams earning a total of 23 credits and 1 team earning 1 credit for the 8 teams that don't make it to earn the same at the team that earned 1 credit

in other words it would be extremely unlikely to happen
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
883 Posts
Cool. I clearly have no clue how this works.
I had the same thought as you, Ace. A team that earns a unit gets 75% of it; the other 25% is split 13 ways. If 2 teams made the tourney, they would each get 75% of their unit and their share of the 25% from the other while the remaining 12 teams get their shares of 25% of both.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,244 Posts
I had the same thought as you, Ace. A team that earns a unit gets 75% of it; the other 25% is split 13 ways. If 2 teams made the tourney, they would each get 75% of their unit and their share of the 25% from the other while the remaining 12 teams get their shares of 25% of both.
Twisted said something that made it seem otherwise on how the split worked for those that made it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,161 Posts
Twisted said something that made it seem otherwise on how the split worked for those that made it.
Yeah, the numbers I posted are based on this split, which I makes more sense to me. Twisted posted numbers based off of slightly different logic, not sure who is correct.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,092 Posts
Thanks guys,. The only suggestion for a validations is the payout column for each team totals to the same number give or take a little as 41 time $257,807 = 10,570,087.

Not to bad in 10.57 Million for a down year plus 5 Mill for TV contract.
We can ballpark the shares a little bit. That $257,807 is from three years ago. Forbes was estimating about $270,000 for last year's unit share.

The dollar amount goes up because it's based on the CBS/Turner ad sales for the tournament, and you get paid in "current year dollars." So we can estimate about $298,000 a share, because it appears to be going up about $5000 a year from 285 to 310 six years from now.

But all the $5000 here or there stuff is nitpicking. Because in all our math (TV contract, NCAA units, etc), we're dividing by 14... but that money is where our conference office gets its budget.

We don't have to break it down to the dollar.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,092 Posts
Are you guys using shares, credits and units interchangeably or are they different?
I'm trying not to, but probably am by accident. There's no "official" language to this.

To me, I'd use:
UNITS are what we earn from the NCAA. Bona earned 2 units this year.

They're paid out from SHARES of the NCAA contract, you get a share per unit for each year for the next six years.
 

·
Piker
Joined
·
8,601 Posts
This is the C-USA's answer to bringing in more $ by trying to get more than one bid.


Next season, C-USA’s men’s basketball schedule will look nothing like that of any other Division I conference. Instead of releasing a hard-set regular season conference schedule, C-USA will seed its teams after the opening 14 games of the conference slate. The conference will then face its best teams off against one another over the next four games, with the end goal of placing multiple teams in the NCAA tournament and securing higher seeds for those teams.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
905 Posts
Just came here to post the same story. While the optimist in me would rather build up the entirety of the conference to make all our conference games affect the computer rankings in a positive manner, this is a good workaround by CUSA. On a yearly basis they'll sort out who the haves and have nots are based on the nonconference results and adjust accordingly. Now you run less of a risk of your #2 or #3 ranked bubble team taking a killer loss late in the season against the last place team. It seems like a quite cynical route by CUSA only designed to protect earnings but I can appreciate as a "fight fire with fire" approach towards the NCAA selection process.

Conversely, how would you like to finish in the lower division of the conference and not be able to even play perennially strong teams in the conference. I would think bad play one year would perpetuate for awhile, as this would affect incoming recruits who don't want to risk playing none of the higher echelon teams, tv scheduling, etc. So a microcosm of the P5 versus all other leagues would be playing out within the conference.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2 Posts
This is the C-USA's answer to bringing in more $ by trying to get more than one bid.


Next season, C-USA’s men’s basketball schedule will look nothing like that of any other Division I conference. Instead of releasing a hard-set regular season conference schedule, C-USA will seed its teams after the opening 14 games of the conference slate. The conference will then face its best teams off against one another over the next four games, with the end goal of placing multiple teams in the NCAA tournament and securing higher seeds for those teams.
long time lurker, first time poster (i think)

just want to say that that scheduling system from the C-USA is genius and that the A10 should consider the same proposal
 
41 - 60 of 96 Posts
Top