Tech's Wac Check Decreases

[MeanGreen61]

Some of the money also has been coming from entrance fees for USU, Idaho & NMSU.

Tech's WAC dividend check was for $855,015 and it included $410,555 in BCS monies, down from $1.1 million ($559,222 BCS) in 2007. Tech received $667,000 from the WAC in 2006 without a BCS bowl game.

"It certainly helps, but it's not the solution. It won't pay the bills and won't put food on the table," Tech athletic director Derek Dooley said, speaking figuratively.

Tech's WAC check decreases

http://www.shreveporttimes.com/apps/pbcs.d...337/1001/SPORTS

Edited July 12, 2008 by MeanGreen61

[MeanGreen61]

Post by Reality Check on the Tech board.

ULL's Sun Belt payout for 2006-2007 was $804,780. Any payout advantage Tech has had over the last several years is gone for 2007-2008.

And the WAC was up against it though I would have kept Boise at home and sent Fresno to Hawai'i. There was no good choice as both Fresno and Boise had played on the islands within 13 days of each other in November. Keeping Boise at home would have increased ticket revenues and eliminated Boise's travel expenses. Sending Fresno to Hawai'i would have only marginally increased travel expenses. The conference decisions might have been best for the two teams, but they were definitely not the best for the financial bottom line.

[VideoEagle]

Isn't it next year that NMSU, Utah State and Idaho start getting shares of the WAC payouts? They didn't for the first two or three years as their fee for joining the WAC. If the pot is being divided three more ways next year, the WAC better hope to have another team in a BCS bowl of face a really big drop in that revenue stream.

[MeanGreen61]

Isn't it next year that NMSU, Utah State and Idaho start getting shares of the WAC payouts? They didn't for the first two or three years as their fee for joining the WAC. If the pot is being divided three more ways next year, the WAC better hope to have another team in a BCS bowl of face a really big drop in that revenue stream.

They are already getting a share of the conference payouts.

Honolulu Advertiser

[MDH]

And the WAC was up against it though I would have kept Boise at home and sent Fresno to Hawai'i. There was no good choice as both Fresno and Boise had played on the islands within 13 days of each other in November. Keeping Boise at home would have increased ticket revenues and eliminated Boise's travel expenses. Sending Fresno to Hawai'i would have only marginally increased travel expenses. The conference decisions might have been best for the two teams, but they were definitely not the best for the financial bottom line.

That bowl decision was absolutely BIZARRE! Boise just been there and there's more money & people in the Fresno area to go travel to Hawaii. Although, it gave Fresno the chance to play a better team (Georgia Tech) and upset them. I still have no idea how Boise blew that game to ECU....

[Arkstfan]

They are already getting a share of the conference payouts.

Honolulu Advertiser

My understanding was that the WAC was going to withhold something like $250,000 year for three years or $200,000 for four years from those three.

[MeanGreen61]

My understanding was that the WAC was going to withhold something like $250,000 year for three years or $200,000 for four years from those three.

If that's true how are the shares for USU and Idaho within around $55,000 of Tech ?

Edited July 12, 2008 by MeanGreen61

[THOR]

If that's true how are the shares for USU and Idaho within around $55,000 of Tech ?

cause tech sucks! duh!!!

[stebo]

Maybe NMSU chose to pay it out over 4 years and the other two chose to pay it out over 3? And it could be that last year the asked for a one year extension (be exempt) from the withholding thus $400K was withheld this year?

Edited July 12, 2008 by stebo

[Arkstfan]

And it could be the others got some TV.

[DirtySavage]

The WAC is paying based on performance. Interesting.

[johnnylightnin]

Not sure where you got those figures ASF.

Those numbers will look a lot better next year now that ESPN is increasing what they pay us 4-fold. That, paired with getting Hawaii and Boise in their own bowls will have the pay-out back to where it should be. Ticket sales at the Hawaii and Boise Bowls are what really killed us.

[Arkstfan]

Maybe NMSU chose to pay it out over 4 years and the other two chose to pay it out over 3? And it could be that last year the asked for a one year extension (be exempt) from the withholding thus $400K was withheld this year?

From the article

Both Utah State and Idaho received $800,247 from the WAC, while New Mexico State brought up the cellar with $432,197. The latter amount was due to the Aggies athletic department being required to pay each WAC school $40,000 as a guarantee for hosting the WAC postseason basketball tournament.

That explains $240,000.

[Arkstfan]

Not sure where you got those figures ASF.

Those numbers will look a lot better next year now that ESPN is increasing what they pay us 4-fold. That, paired with getting Hawaii and Boise in their own bowls will have the pay-out back to where it should be. Ticket sales at the Hawaii and Boise Bowls are what really killed us.

Quick quiz.

Take $13 million (current WAC distribution among all teams).

Add $3 million (net increase under WAC TV deal).

Subtract $4 million (amount WAC gets by placing a team in BCS)

If the WAC doesn't place a team in the BCS how does that go up?

As noted in the Honolulu and Shreveport articles if most of the TV money is going out based on TV appearances it would seem that most of the ESPN increase is headed to Honolulu, Boise, Fresno and Reno.

[johnnylightnin]

Quick quiz.

Take $13 million (current WAC distribution among all teams).

Add $3 million (net increase under WAC TV deal).

Subtract $4 million (amount WAC gets by placing a team in BCS)

If the WAC doesn't place a team in the BCS how does that go up?

As noted in the Honolulu and Shreveport articles if most of the TV money is going out based on TV appearances it would seem that most of the ESPN increase is headed to Honolulu, Boise, Fresno and Reno.

$111,111.11 is what the net loss would be (per team)...obviously, that's better than the $500,000 (per team) that would be subtracted without the new contract. It has the potential to be a break even proposition once we have the right teams in the right bowls...even without the BCS.

The point is that the pay-out isn't going to all of a sudden become equitable with the SBC when there is no BCS team.

[Arkstfan]

$111,111.11 is what the net loss would be (per team)...obviously, that's better than the $500,000 (per team) that would be subtracted without the new contract. It has the potential to be a break even proposition once we have the right teams in the right bowls...even without the BCS.

The point is that the pay-out isn't going to all of a sudden become equitable with the SBC when there is no BCS team.

It is is and I don't dispute that.

But if the rumors are true, the per team to Sun Belt schools for TV will be going up nearly $100,000 per team after this upcoming season.

Throw in five years of a guaranteed increase in NCAA money (WKU eats most of the increase the first year) and it works out to about an extra $50,000 per team per year.

In other words, if the WAC doesn't field a BCS entrant the gap in revenue distribution drops $100,000 from the WAC decrease and drops another $150,000 from the Sun Belt increase.

Let's put it in perspective. Tech's receipts from the WAC right now are equal to basically one money game in football. Sun Belt per team roughly 4 money games in basketball. The typical Sun Belt receipt was 25% of what Tech made. At the end of the 09-10 academic year if the WAC doesn't have a BCS entrant and doesn't gain any extra NCAA units and the Sun Belt doesn't have a BCS entrant or gain any extra NCAA units the Sun Belt per team receipts will be 50% of the WAC distribution to Tech.

Worse, for the WAC members the narrowing of the gap is because of a fall in spendable cash at a time when energy costs have basically doubled over two years, while the Sun Belt increase should help cover some of that increase.

The simple truth is that if ULM weren't in the Sun Belt, we wouldn't be having this conversation because Tech would have joined the Sun Belt shortly after UTEP joined CUSA.