SEC schools to get about $51.3M each for '22-23
SEC commissioner Greg Sankey announced Thursday the conference will distribute $741 million to its 14 member universities, with about $51.3 million going to each school for the 2022-23 fiscal year.
$51M payout for SEC schools
- Thread starter NCPnthr05
- Start date
I read that Pitt got $41m in 2021.SEC schools to get about $51.3M each for '22-23
SEC commissioner Greg Sankey announced Thursday the conference will distribute $741 million to its 14 member universities, with about $51.3 million going to each school for the 2022-23 fiscal year.www.espn.com
honestly, i thought it would almost be twice that much. isnt the big 10 paying out like 75M to each program?
This was the last year of the CBS deal, next year the payouts will be hire.
Did you major in English at Ped St?
Don't knock hire education...
That's what Joe said!
They don’t see it for a few more years. This distribution is based on revenues generated in 2021-22. Revenues generated in the 2023-24 sports year will be distributed in 2025. So the Big Ten won’t get a large revenue bump until 2025. The SEC won’t until 2026. The ACC will also get a (not as large bump) in 2026 with the Cal/Stanford/SMU additions.
Honestly, I think these types of numbers are indicative of future relegation amongst the Big Ten/SEC after the next round of realignment.
Given the TV and media landscape, those numbers are going to plateau at some point, perhaps after their next TV deal with CBS/FOX/NBC… how do you continue to increase the revenue then? Cut the pie into larger slices.
Given the TV and media landscape, those numbers are going to plateau at some point, perhaps after their next TV deal with CBS/FOX/NBC… how do you continue to increase the revenue then? Cut the pie into larger slices.
Wow... great. And we pay the players?
Pitt got like 280 million from NIH grants the past year, just from NIH, not the myriad of other funding from corporate research, which total over 1 billion dollars
Pitt got like 280 million from NIH grants the past year, just from NIH, not the myriad of other funding from corporate research, which total over 1 billion dollars
In FY 2023, Pitt received $658.3 million from the NIH alone. $1.16 billion in total R&D contracts and grants.
$0.0 of which can legally go towards athletics.
It will jump to $80 to 100 million in 2025 with the addition of those 4 PAC schools. The Big Ten will then control 53% of all CF TV markets which is just beyond staggering. It will be the Big Ten and SEC in 3 to 4 years and everybody else will be minor league
Yeah, my comment was more on the absolute stupidity of people thinking players should get paid because they make the university sooooooo much money. Its a drop in the bucket compared to the actual minds that attend the school and the money generated by it directly through NIH and the like, and indirectly through IP and patents.
people that wanted college players to be paid just wanted to see turmoil and chaos within the college sports. it's weird, i dont get it but people just enjoy seeing stuff get burned to the ground, even if they are so called fans of the sport. human nature..
everyone knew without a doubt that if you open this box, paying players, all hell will break loose and the college game will crumble, it was common sense. yet these fans screamed for it, out of spite i guess or just to see what would happen.
And well, it happened and here we are, exactly where we all knew we'd be if we went down this road.
pittdan77
Athletic Director
I've been in favor of players getting paid for a long time but not to watch things burn. The reason it was prevented is because the schools were quite happy with what amounted to really cheap labor. Most of the players would have been happy with a monthly stipend that gave them enough money to travel home over breaks and be able to do some things off campus. Because of the stubbornness, it flipped upside down almost overnight.
Plus, it was a stance that was a weird win for both political parties. the libs say 'most these kids are impoverished and make these universities money off their broken bodies' (which has no basis really, sure some kids are, some kids arent, but they certainly dont focus on the ones that arent). And the right says, 'oh what a great example of capitalism, if you dont like it, dont watch it, its great these kids get their money'
Of course, none of these people realize that just as collegiate sports student athletes dont have the forum to make money through other routes, most college great technical minds dont either. Most kids just dont have access to scanning electron microscopes, enormous labs, and the education. 3M isnt going to hire a kid out of high school, they are also forced into working for professors and departments that use their hard work, and minds for their gains, all for the chance to make money after graduation.
Yeah, but that is my point. Why?????
College athletics dont make as much as other majors for the university, why dont those kids get paid?
It makes absolutely no sense to pay college athletes. Now, if you want to pay them for jersey sales, or their faces on NCAA '26, fine, but not even a stipend I agree with. They get scholarships, free housing, free food... that is more than enough for what they bring into a university compared to other students
pittdan77
Athletic Director
Grad students in those programs get paid. They have unions at many schools and have been fighting uphill for better pay and I believe benefits. Of course there aren't a hundred thousand people there to watch them do field work or write papers so there isn't as much pressure on a school to worry over their salaries. You're probably not wrong about the overall value but schools have these brands that come from athletics that they benefit from.
Grad students are 1) students. and 2) students.
They are in training positions. It is an apprentice system.
They get a stipend for living expenses. They get free tuition. In the biosciences, that stipend is set by NIH which provides 75% of the funding for their training (i.e. training grants) at a place like Pitt. Some others may earn the stiopend through working part time as a TAs if they aren't on a training grant, others do not need to TA to get the money, and some will TA just to get experience in a class room.
The vast majority of grad students at Pitt are in the biosciences. Unions for grad students are still fairly rare and do absolutely zippo for them (see stipend levels set by NIH). It is a pure money grab by the unions, who go after, primarily, foreign or other naive students who don't know any better but are pressured into signing cards.
Grad students in the humanities, they often get more of a short stick because they don't have NIH funding a huge chunk of training and research and setting minimums. Unions may help those types of students, but probably not alot.
Similarly, people who don't think that the people who are responsible for making the money should get paid any of it are in favor of slavery.
See, ridiculous hyperbolic statements can cut both ways.
Everyone actually knew that if the NCAA got off their asses and came up with a decent, fair system that none of where we are now would have ever happened. But the NCAA (and the schools) liked keeping all the money for themselves, and for some reason too many fans blindly followed their lead.
I guess because they like slavery.
My favorite college football fan is those who don't want to watch because the players are getting paid. They have always been paid.I posted a photo of Magic Johnson and his teammate in 1979 at Michigan State with two brand new Mercedes. For the top players and programs, it is has always been paid.
The problem is not that the players are getting paid, but how they are getting paid and no rules or guidelines and allow the players to be free agent every week.
Yes, absolutely. The NCAA had literally more than a decade to get out in front of this, and instead they decided to milk the system for all it was worth for as long as they could.
What's the old saying, you reap what you sow? Well where college athletics is now is a direct result of what the NCAA has been "sowing" for the last, what, four decades? Because the money and protecting what they saw as theirs has always been more important than the players.
This is a football board, you idiot. Nothing you are stating has any relevance whatsoever to the task at hand.
The OC and OL coach for Alabama came from Washington.
Interviewed for the Seahawks job.
*Announced* he didn’t intend to take it and was going to be the OC for Bama next year.
Got Washington OL players to transfer to Bama.
And then once the school schedule started and players essentially couldn’t transfer if they wanted to be in for the spring, they both said, “just kidding. We’re going to the Seahawks.”
And the problem is the players are free agents????
NIL is starting to look like the one thing that really is going to save the average fan viewing experience.
It’s keeping college studs around rather than having them roll the dice on the draft.
It’s more evenly dispersing talent.
So it’s acting as a safeguard against the “Alabama” empire that so many people complained was turning them off from college football.
It’s keeping college studs around rather than having them roll the dice on the draft.
It’s more evenly dispersing talent.
So it’s acting as a safeguard against the “Alabama” empire that so many people complained was turning them off from college football.
I don't share your optimism. NIL funding will be radically different between the top 4-5, and the unfortunate rest. Talent will be spread around a bit more, but none of the non-important programs will get any. It will just get more evenly spread out among the top 20 programs. In addition, anybody a mid-level program stumbles upon and develops and turns into a star, will be a free agent for the following season, without compensation for the original program.
What SHOULD happen is something like what happens in European soccer, where a transfer fee is paid to the team that loses the talent. That would act to slow down movement a bit, and spread the wealth a bit.
How many teams should it be equally spread amongst? 20 national title contenders seems like a lot of parity.
This also makes the gap between those teams and the next level smaller. And while that won’t result in a non-20 team winning a national title, it will result in more 20 teams being upset by the non-20.
I think a lot of the divide about NIL is what you think the purpose of rules and regulations are? There are some fans, and I get why they do it, but there are some fans that will never be happy with rules and regulations that completely even the playing field for their team. “That’s great that this new world has weakened dynasties and elevated Ole Miss, but I don’t cheer for the Rebels, so what has it done for me? How does it make me team a possible national champion?”
And if the answer is it doesn’t, then it’s not enough and not good for college football.
What is this glory era of college football where a greater pool of 20 teams had national title ceilings? It’s certainly not during my lifetime.
Do want want NIL to bring us back to an era before it became Bama/Clemson/maybe OSU/one of 2 other SEC programs, and that’s it for national title contenders and winners? Something more similar to the ‘80s and ‘90s.
If so, go look at those decades. 1985 and 1990 are exceptions. But even factoring in that you could have *multiple* national title games, so in theory more opportunity, the pool of teams at the end of the year was very limited. With Miami, FSU, and Nebraska dynasties dominating the two decades.
If that’s not how we judge the benefit of NIL to the on-field product and fan viewing experience, then what is the standard?
