Category Archives: Basketball
Final Four Pumps Millions into Atlanta Economy
$70 million.
That’s the projected economic impact the 2013 Final Four will have on Atlanta this weekend. While none of Georgia’s home teams are contending in the Big Dance, the state still has plenty to celebrate with an estimated 100,000 out-of-town guests flocking to its capital. This is the fourth time Atlanta has hosted the NCAA Men’s Final Four, but, as this year marks the 75th anniversary of March Madness, organizers expect the event to draw one of the largest crowds in tournament history.
The Georgia Dome, situated in the heart of downtown Atlanta, offers nearly 75,000 seats to spectators who are paying up to $1600 per ticket. Philips Arena, home to the Atlanta Hawks, will also play host to the Division II and III championships, luring an even wider fan-base. It’s not ticket sales that will be pumping dollars into the city’s bank account, though. Approximately 10,000 hotel rooms will be booked for the weekend, and the fine-dining establishments within driving distance from the Dome are jam-packed with reservations.
Drawing a crowd of this magnitude offers colossal opportunities to increase revenue. Hotels in metro Atlanta are showing spikes in nightly rates anywhere from 55-200 percent. According to atlantahotels.org, a King Room at the downtown Holiday Inn Express typically runs for $139 per night. This weekend, however, guests will pay around $382. The same model room at Hotel Indigo in midtown jumped from $129 to $406− an astounding 215 percent increase.
Though local businesses are certainly taking advantage of the chance to turn sizable profits, the city is not forgetting its dedication to Southern hospitality. The Georgia World Congress Center is offering plenty of fan festivities and Centennial Olympic Park will feature free concerts on Friday and Saturday, headlining artists such as Ludacris, Sting, Muse and the Dave Mathews Band.
In a struggling national economy, we rely on cultural staples to transcend financial strife. College sports will always be among these. While a trip to the Final Four (and especially a national title) will give hundreds of thousands back to coaches, universities, and conferences, the economic value of collegiate athletics can be appreciated across the board. This weekend, Atlanta, Georgia will be the obliged beneficiary.
Who Fans are Most Mad for March?
By: James Maddox
It’s a forgone conclusion that in this day and age large sporting events will have a huge social media influence. This past February’s Super Bowl helped generate 24.1 million tweets during “America’s Game.” Now, the holy grail for college basketball fans is taking the spotlight as March Madness gets prepared to crown the 2013 national champion. And it seems the Twitterverse has spoken when it comes to which school and fan base is making the most noise.
Fizziology, a social media research company, recently did an analysis of the NCAA tournament based on organic discussion on Twitter this past Tuesday and Wednesday. Organic discussion in this sense is defined as discussion pertaining to anything related to the NCAA men’s basketball tournament that users talk about on their own, without any prompt. The conversation was broken down as follows:
- South region: 37%
- Northeast region: 26%
- Midwest: 21%
- West region: 16%
It makes sense for the South region to lead in Twitter conversation. Louisville, the #1 overall seed, is in the South and Florida Gulf Coast has dominated headlines as they continue their miraculous tournament run. According to Fizziology, the South has 41% more conversation about March Madness than the Northeast, 79% more than the Midwest, and 124% more than the West on Selection Sunday. Keep in mind these regions refer to geographical regions and not necessarily the regions according to the tournament bracket.
With many of the 68 teams representing large metropolitan areas, it’s no surprise that the list of markets with the most Twitter users talking about March Madness reflected this as of 3/27/13:
| Designated Market Area (DMA) |
| 1. New York |
| 2. Washington, D.C. |
| 3. Chicago |
| 4. Atlanta |
| 5. Los Angeles |
| 6. Charlotte |
| 7. Indianapolis |
| 8. Philadelphia |
| 9. Louisville |
| 10. Dallas/Ft. Worth |
| 11. Boston |
| 12. San Francisco |
| 13. Kansas City |
| 14. Raleigh |
| 15. Detroit |
Fizziology was able to gather other interesting tidbits of data as well:
- Overall conversation among Tweets was 59% positive, 37% neutral, 1% negative, and 3% mixed
- Conversations regarding brackets constituted approximately 32% of the organic conversation.
- 83% of those filling out brackets completed at least two, 5% filled out at least 5, 4% filled out at least 10, and another 4% filled out at least 15.
Furthermore, ViralHeat was able to summarize an interesting collection of information regarding the tournament with an info graphic titled “March Madness: The Journey to the Socially Sweet Sixteen.” Here is what they discovered:
- Based on Twitter mentions the most talked about team among the Sweet 16 is the University of Miami with well over 312,000 mentions; the least talked about team is Michigan State with 29,980 mentions.
- The most positive messages on social media were related to Wichita State with 66% positive sentiment; the lease positive messages were regarding Syracuse with 44% negative sentiment.
- When Wichita State defeated Gonzaga, the Bulldogs’ overall positive sentiment dropped to 22% while Wichita State’s overall positive sentiment soared to 46%.
- Florida Gulf Coast’s upset over San Diego State landed the FGCU Eagles as the only team in the top 3 for both total mentions and positive sentiment.
- Based on a combination of the team’s seed and total social media attention, the social media world predicted Kansas, Indiana, Florida Gulf Coast, and Duke in the Final Four.
March Madness Social Media Buzz
Viralheat, a social analytic platform, has created the following infographic about social media buzz around March Madness.
Are you surprised to learn Miami is getting more mentions than FGCU? Or that Kansas-UNC was the most-mentioned game?
VCU: The ‘Smart’ Place to Go
By: Jason Singer
When Virginia Commonwealth University (VCU) burst onto the NCAA Basketball scene in 2011 and made it all the way to the Final Four, nobody thought anything of it. Everyone, including the teams in their own region, thought VCU was just another Cinderella team, one that managed to get the magic slipper for one year, and would never get back amongst the elite of Men’s basketball again.
However, this has not been the case, as VCU has now reached the past three NCAA tournaments, and has won at least one game in all three years. Most recently, they gained their highest seeding ever (#5 seed), with an at large bid from the Atlantic-10 Conference, and defeating #12 Akron, in their 2nd round matchup.
VCU has now gained popularity all over the country, with support from celebrities like Spike Lee, who made sure to see them play at their conference tournament at the Barclays Center this year. He even tweeted to the coach and the players:
As evidenced by Spike Lee’s enthusiasm for the team, the uproar of VCU basketball has clearly reached a national level.
Shaka Smart, the Head Coach of VCU, exemplifies the image of the basketball team, school, and the city of Richmond, Virginia in general. For example, a professor from the University of Maryland, Ronald T. Rust, said it perfectly: “By highlighting him … (officials) project an image of the city — young, hip, multiethnic and successful — that is not necessarily Richmond’s current image.” Rust and many others say that by Smart staying in Richmond and not bolting for a bigger, more well-known university, he shows that there is reason for kids to come to VCU, whether they play basketball or not. The basketball program increases tourism, merchandising, and business growth in general, and makes students who are applying for colleges want to attend VCU, since the university and city are becoming more reputable as a result.
Furthermore, the program has increased interest by companies and businesses throughout the fifty states, as those travelling through town may be inclined to go see a great team play basketball. Lee Warfield, a president of a commercial real estate brokerage firm, in Henrico County, Virginia, says that the success of the team is lifting the profile of the region, and in turn luring clients in. VCU, and Richmond, being shown on national television gives the region a positive image, which is the exact image that Warfield and other in the area want.
Of course, VCU has benefited from the basketball success in other ways as well, from apparel sales to applications to donations. Last year, Kristi Dosh wrote on ESPN.com that apparel sales in 2011 topped $1.3 million during March Madness, donations to athletics were up 376 percent and donations to the university were up 46 percent.
All in all, it seems that having Shaka Smart stay in Richmond to coach VCU Men’s Basketball, at a time when the program is becoming increasingly better, will continue to have great outcomes for the region. VCU has now became a force to be reckoned with in Men’s Basketball, and nobody will be taking them lightly for years to come. Personally, I look forward to seeing what they can do in future years, and can’t wait to see when Shaka Smart and his players are cutting down the nets after winning it all.
Where Does All the NCAA Tournament Money Go?
With March Madness well underway many assume that money is just given back to athletic departments without question after a big win. While some of that is true, money does in fact go back to the athletic departments, much of it is earmarked for specific types of uses and not simply deposited for general use. In addition, the NCAA keeps a portion to fund its operations.
A total of $504 million (62 percent) was returned back to the Division 1 conferences and member institutions after the 2011 -12 fiscal year.
Every year the money made is divided into six primary shares: Academic Enhancement, Basketball, Grant-in-Aid, Student Assistance, Sports Sponsorship and Conference Grant. This is how it’s all broken down:
Academic Enhancement Fund ($24.6 million): A payment of $68,000 is sent to each Division 1 institution to use for academic support service for student athletes.
Basketball Fund ($202 million): This is the one category where money goes back into athletic departments with no direction for its use. The NCAA distributes money to the conferences based on how many teams participated in the men’s basketball tournament and how many games each team played. Conferences are encouraged to split the money equally to all schools, but some conferences provide stipends to those who actually participated in the games. The payment amount from the NCAA is determined by each school’s performance in the tournament based on a six-year rolling average.
In the 2011 – 12 season, each school participating in each game, excluding the championship game, received one unit (payment) of $242,000. No units are awarded for the championship game.
In 2012 – 13, each basketball unit is worth $245,500.
Here is how much money one team would make as they advance through the tournament:
Round 1: $245,500
Round 2: $491,000
Sweet 16: $736,500
Elite 8: $982,000
Final Four: $1,227,500
However, units have six-year lives, so projections by Forbes have a Final Four participant this year earning its conference $7.7 million over the life of the units.
Grant-In-Aid Fund ($134.7 million): Distribution of money to schools is decided based off the number of scholarships given out the previous year.
Student Athlete Assistance Fund ($66.1 million): This fund is made up of two separate funds: the Student Athlete Opportunity Fund ($51 million) and Special Assistance Fund ($15.1 million). Any athlete can use the Student Athlete Opportunity Fund even after they no longer partaking due to medical reasons or have surpassed eligibility. Students apply to this fund for a variety expenses. For example, they could apply if they need assistance with graduate school application fees or testing fees.
Sports-Sponsorship Fund ($67.3 million): The schools with more non-revenue sports receive more money. This fund is used to help inspire schools to sponsor more sports.
Conference Grant ($8.3 million): This grant is used to enhance officiating programs, compliance and enforcement, diversity, and drug and gambling education.
With regards to the Student Athlete Assistance Fund, Maryland recently brought to light an interesting question of whether student athletes are utilizing the resources available to them. Maryland recently used funds from the Student Athlete Opportunity Fund to purchase iPads for all it student athletes. Given that Maryland recently cut sports, many were upset with the move.
However, Maryland quickly issued a statement saying the funds were from the Student Athlete Opportunity Fund, monies from which cannot be used to fund operating expenses, but instead must be used for educational purposes.
Curious as to why Maryland had enough money in its fund to buy the iPads, BusinessofCollegeSports.com founder Kristi Dosh held an unofficial Twitter poll asking athletic administrators across the country whether or not student athletes utilize this money. Most of the responses Dosh received indicated that student athletes aren’t applying to use the funds, despite the administrator’s insistence that student athletes know about the fund. A couple inferred that perhaps the paperwork is too much trouble. Only one school, out of about a dozen, indicated its student athletes routinely use up all the money in the fund.
Are you surprised at how March Madness money is divided up? For more information on just how much conferences take home from the tournament, check out Kristi’s piece from last year on ESPN.com.
Follow Mackenzie on Twitter: @KenzieThirkill
If Money Could Buy a Championship
The saying goes “you get what you give.” Can the same phrase be applied to sports though? In recent years, schools that have won championships are the ones who have invested more money into their programs. Our very own Kristi Dosh, ESPN’s sports business reporter and founder of BusinessofCollegeSports.com, has a piece on schools with the highest revenue that have made it into the tournament, but what about the schools who have the highest expenses?
If it were to come down to spending, who would win it all? Here’s a look at all 64 teams including their overall expenses for their basketball program. All 32 games are broken down by region. The information below is from the Office of Postsecondary Education of the U.S. Department of Education.
|
South |
||||
| Kansas |
$12,740,720 |
vs |
Western Kentucky |
$2,708,422 |
| North Carolina |
$7,157,618 |
vs |
Villanova |
$6,398,678 |
| VCU |
$3,803,913 |
vs |
Akron |
$1,967,989 |
| Michigan |
$5,933,437 |
vs |
S. Dakota St. |
$913,067 |
| UCLA |
$7,216,738 |
vs |
Minnesota |
$5,071,500 |
| Florida |
$8,474,783 |
vs |
Northwestern St |
$1,000,408 |
| San Diego St. |
$4,432,238 |
vs |
Oklahoma |
$6,813,149 |
| Georgetown |
$10,015,207 |
vs |
Fla. Gulf Coast |
$1,089,569 |
| Winner of South: | Kansas |
|
West |
||||
| Gonzaga |
$6,138,269 |
vs |
Southern U |
$534,595 |
| Pittsburgh |
$7,344,213 |
vs |
Wichita St |
$4,644,724 |
| Wisconsin |
$6,839,111 |
vs |
Ole Miss |
$2,510,418 |
| Kansas St |
$4,347,318 |
vs |
La Salle |
$2,046,119 |
| Arizona |
$7,959,652 |
vs |
Belmont |
2,213,543 |
| New Mexico |
$4,448,245 |
vs |
Harvard |
$1,225,999 |
| Notre Dame |
$4,622,255 |
vs |
Iowa St |
$4,402,362 |
| Ohio St |
$5,956,288 |
vs |
Iona |
$1,691,344 |
| Winner of West | Arizona |
|
East |
||||
| Indiana |
$9,264,091 |
vs |
James Madison |
$2,273,522 |
| NC State |
$5,444,127 |
vs |
Temple |
$4,080,845 |
| UNLV |
$3,760,187 |
vs |
California |
$6,406,523 |
| Syracuse |
$14,214,993 |
vs |
Montana |
$1,532,926 |
| Butler |
$3,924,026 |
vs |
Bucknell |
$1,860,056 |
| Marquette |
$9,941,583 |
vs |
Davidson |
$1,727,330 |
| Illinois |
$6,584,190 |
vs |
Colorado |
$4,490,779 |
| Miami (Fla.) |
$5,795,451 |
vs |
Pacific |
$1,836,357 |
| Winner of East | Syarcuse |
|
Midwest |
||||
| Louisville |
$15,119,088 |
vs |
North Carolina A&T |
$223,483 |
| Colorado St |
$3,638,042 |
vs |
Missouri |
$6,112,025 |
| Oklahoma St |
$13,745,832 |
vs |
Oregon |
$5,897,791 |
| Saint Louis |
$3,101,169 |
vs |
New Mexico St |
$2,534,542 |
| Memphis |
$7,515,987 |
vs |
Saint Marys |
$2,533,902 |
| Michigan St |
$9,837,886 |
vs |
Valparaiso |
$1,781,911 |
| Creighton |
$4,404,350 |
vs |
Cincinnati |
$5,995,336 |
| Duke |
$15,901,099 |
vs |
Albany (N.Y) |
$1,384,377 |
| Winner of Midwest | Duke |
Before one makes an argument about Kentucky (the reigning champs, whose total expenses came to $15,119,088, about $300,000 less than Louisville), unfortunately money doesn’t buy a new recruiting class or guarantee a win.
Duke for example beats out Louisville by $411,145; and Louisville is the number one seed in the tournament.
If the Final Four were to come down to the biggest spenders of each region it would be Kansas, Arizona, Syracuse and Duke.
Taking a look at the winners of each region, could there be a connection between spending more and winning a national championship?
As you will see in this years bracket the winner would be Duke. Interestingly enough, Duke has the most National Championships compared to the other three remaining schools.
|
Final Four |
# of Championships | ||
| Kansas |
$12,740,720 |
3 (’52, ’88, ’08) | |
| Arizona |
$7,959,652 |
1 (’97) | |
| Syracuse |
$14,214,993 |
1 (’03) | |
| Duke |
$15,901,099 |
4 (’91, ’92, ’01, ’10) |
What makes up a team’s expenses is a multitude of disbursements that can include athletes room and board, equipment, and travel expenses, but a big part of team spending is used to pay the head coach.
Without quality coaching a team won’t even make it as far as The Big Dance, and the better the coach, the more a school is willing to spend to keep them. How much of the overall expenses are paid to the coaches? The information is from USA Today and the Arizona Star.
| Head Coach | School Pay | Other Pay | Total Pay | % Used for Coach Salary | |
| Bill Self (Kansas) | 3.4 million | $258,000 | 3.7 million | 29.13% | |
| Sean Miller (Arizona) | 1.1 million | 1.1 million | 2.2 million | 27.50% | |
| Jim Boeheim (Syracuse) | 1.5 million | N/A | 1.5 million | 10.70% | |
| Mike Krzyewski (Duke) | 4.7 million | N/A | 4.7 million | 29.30% |
The coaches whose teams that have made it to our predicted Final Four aren’t doing too bad for themselves. Coach Boeheim of Syracuse might want to look into asking for more money though, since he’s the only coach who isn’t getting paid at least a quarter of what is being spent.
Louisville, who was just short of Duke in expenditures, was the highest not only in revenue, but also net revenue. Just trailing slightly behind Louisville is Syracuse and Duke. As mentioned earlier, Louisville is the number one seed in the tournament, and is also favored to win by many.
All in all, could money be a beneficial factor in winning a championship? Only the next few weeks will tell.
Follow Mackenzie on Twitter: @KenzieThirkill
Editor’s Note: Creighton’s expenses were incorrectly listed as $404,350 in the original post. The error has been resolved.
Davidson Says “No, Thanks” To The CAA, College of Charleston Says “Yes, Please”: What Happens Next?
Last week the Southern Conference made an announcement that had been rumored for weeks: Davidson has rejected the Colonial Athletic Association’s invitation to join and will remain in the Southern Conference. While some may be surprised at Davidson’s decision to remain in a less highly-rated conference, the decision actually makes sense for a number of reasons.
First, although the CAA is a higher rated basketball conference (14th in last year’s RPI compared to the Southern Conference’s 23rd), moving to the conference wouldn’t have necessarily benefitted Davidson’s basketball program. It could have actually harmed the program.
Davidson’s men’s basketball team is currently the cream of the crop in the Southern Conference. This would not be the case in the CAA. Although the CAA has recently received multiple tournament bids, it is usually a one bid conference like the Southern. In moving to the CAA, Davidson would be moving to a tougher one bid conference, thereby harming its chances of making the NCAA tournament on a regular basis as it recently has done as a member of the Southern Conference.
Second, I doubt Davidson would realize much, if any, financial benefit from moving to the CAA. Although the CAA did recently sign a television deal with NBC Sports Network that will increase the conference’s national exposure ( NBCSN will carry 18 CAA men’s basketball games nationally this season), the CAA members receive no money from the deal. NBCSN pays for the members’ production costs. That’s it. And there is no guarantee that any of Davidson’s games would actually be selected for a national broadcast. NBCSN did not select one of my alma mater’s games for a national broadcast this year.
It is true that the CAA has recently received much larger payouts from the NCAA’s Basketball Distribution Fund than the Southern ($3,355,296 versus $2,156,976 for the 2010-2011 season). However, most of the CAA’s larger payout has been a result of VCU’s recent NCAA tournament successes. With VCU now gone to the Atlantic 10 and Old Dominion leaving the CAA next year for Conference USA, the CAA is losing two of its basketball programs most likely to experience deep tournament runs. As a result, the Basketball Fund payouts for the CAA and the Southern will likely be much closer in the future.
Lastly, Davidson is just different than most other Division I members. It is content with its current position in the college sports pecking order. There is nothing wrong with that.
Despite Davidson’s rejection, the CAA didn’t leave its foray into the Southern Conference empty handed. On Friday, the College of Charleston’s board of trustees gave the school’s president authority to negotiate Charleston’s entrance into the CAA. Charleston’s president cited a number of reasons for being in favor of the move: stronger conference opponents, increased opportunities for at-large bids to NCAA tournaments, the ability to recruit better student-athletes, stronger academic support for student-athletes, alumni living outside South Carolina will now have access to Charleston games, and access to the resources of the Colonial Academic Alliance, which promotes undergraduate research, study abroad opportunities, and faculty and staff professional development. It’s obvious from this list that Charleston is looking to enhance its athletic and academic programs in making the move.
So, with Charleston in the fold where does the CAA go from here? Look for at least one other Southern Conference member to join Charleston in the CAA at some point. Rumors have focused on UNC-Greensboro, Elon, and Furman. Whatever happens, don’t expect the CAA to retain whatever membership configuration it ends up with for long. There are only 4 teams remaining from what was the CAA when I graduated in 2001.
On a side note, if there would have been fewer defections since then, along with a few additions, the CAA would be even better basketball-wise than it recently has been. Check out this hypothetical conference line-up: Richmond (left after 2000-2001 season), VCU (left after 2011-2012 season), Old Dominion (leaving after 2012-2013 season), East Carolina (left after 2000-2001 season), George Mason, Drexel, Delaware, William and Mary, UNC-Wilmington, James Madison, Northeastern, and Charleston. That conference would compare favorably to any other mid-major basketball conference in the nation.
Could the Atlantic 10 New Media Agreement Foster More Basketball Success?
BY: CAITLYN LAWRENCE
Division I basketball is led by a powerhouse of six conferences (the Big East, Big Ten, Big 12, SEC, ACC, and Pac-12), but is it possible that there are conferences on the outside trying to edge their way in? After securing eight-year partnerships with ESPN, CBS Sports Network, and NBC Sports Group for its media television rights, the Atlantic 10 Conference looks as though it is making strides towards becoming a more dominant force in NCAA Division I basketball.
This new media agreement is linked to the conference’s basketball success. Outside of the big-six conferences, the A-10 is the only conference to have 41 at-large NCAA Men’s Basketball Tournament selections in the past 20 years, including three last year. In the past decade, the A-10 has had 62 postseason appearances, and for the fifth year in a row, the Atlantic 10 has had 12 at-large selections, the seventh most among all other DI institutions, placing the A-10 right behind the big six conferences.
That success surely played an integral role in the A-10′s new television deal.
The agreement reached will more than double the amount of Atlantic 10 basketball exposure. There will be 146 men’s basketball exposures and 46 exposures for women’s basketball programming. For women’s basketball, that is a considerable increase of 77 percent. These appearances will be distributed among the three networks: ESPN, CBS Sports Network, and NBC Sports Network expanding the exposure of A-10 basketball. This new agreement will allow the Atlantic 10 to reach over 33 million television households, which is about 33 percent of the US television market.
This exposure will contribute to the success of Atlantic 10 basketball popularity, in turn promoting the schools of the conference. Success in sports often leads to increased student applicants. For example, the success of the Virginia Commonwealth University (VCU) basketball team during the 2011 NCAA tournament, translated into approximately $677 million in free advertising. This free advertising created an increase in admission inquiries by 350 percent. Therefore, basketball success can increase the interest of attending that institution, but the success is insignificant if there’s no reach to the public, which is why this media agreement is so important. With the Atlantic 10 being in 7 of the top 25 media markets in the US, this agreement could help popularize A-10 schools.
With the past success of the Atlantic 10 conference in DI basketball and the new exposure it is guaranteed with the new media agreement, it is possible more students, and potentially more student-athletes, will inquire about schools in this conference. This could increase the depth and level of this conference and maybe even give them the growth they need to stay competitive with the big six of Division I basketball.
Why Basketball Is Driving Conference Realignment For The Atlantic 10 Conference
Yesterday, the Atlantic 10 Conference announced that Butler University would join the conference on July 1, 2012–one year earlier than anticipated. Gaining Butler a year ahead of schedule grants the Atlantic 10 Conference the benefit of competing with 16 member institutions during the 2012-13 school year, before Temple and Charlotte depart the conference. While this is definitely a perk for the conference, perhaps the biggest benefit the conference gains in Butler’s expedited admission is the chance to become a basketball powerhouse.
Although the Atlantic 10 Conference does not receive the same media recognition as BCS AQ conferences, in recent years, the Atlantic 10 has made its name as a conference which is consistently competitive in basketball. Thus, it is no surprise that in selecting new institution members during the course of conference realignment, that the Atlantic 10 has aligned itself with some of the best-performing basketball schools in recent years: Butler and VCU.
Much has been said about the roles that football and television contracts played and continue to play in conference realignment decisions. However, one cannot turn a blind eye to the power of a strong basketball program when it comes to attracting conferences. Although basketball does not have the monstrously large viewership numbers that football does, it does have a wide enough following to garner billion dollar contracts for the television rights to March Madness. On top of the television contract negotiation potential strong basketball programs present, there is also the fact that the greatest portion of the revenue distributed by the NCAA is distributed to conferences based upon their team’s March Madness performance. Given these factors, it is apparent why the Atlantic Ten Conference has based its stake in conference realignment not upon football prowess, but upon basketball.
As noted above, of the revenue distributed by the NCAA to conferences and member institutions, the greatest percentage goes towards something called the “Basketball Distribution Fund.” Conferences receive payouts from the fund based upon their member institution’s performance in the Division I Men’s Basketball Championship over a six-year rolling period. A basketball program earns one unit for each March Madness game they compete in, save for the National Championship game. For the most recent year in which data is available, 2010-11, the NCAA distributed $479 million to conferences and member institutions through the Basketball Distribution Fund. This amounted to 40.5 percent of all revenue distributed by the NCAA in 2010-11.
The follow chart shows the number of Basketball Distribution Fund units that the Atlantic 10 Conference has earned over the last three years. The chart depicts what the conference earned through its actual members’ performances in a given year, and also notes how many additional units that the conference could have earned if Butler and VCU were conference members in a particular year.
| 2010 | Units Earned | 2011 | Units Earned | 2012 | Units Earned |
| Richmond | 1 | Richmond | 3 | St. Bonaventure | 1 |
| Temple | 1 | Temple | 2 | St. Louis | 2 |
| Xavier | 1 | Xavier | 1 | Temple | 1 |
| Butler | 5 + NC | Butler | 5 + NC | Xavier | 3 |
| VCU | 5 | VCU | 2 | ||
| 2010 Total: 3 | 2011 Total: 6 | 2012 Total: 7 | |||
| With Butler and VCU: 8 + NC | With Butler and VCU: 16 + NC | With Butler and VCU: 9 |
When considering the chart above, the presence of Butler and VCU in the Atlantic 10 clearly generates additional revenue for the conference. In 2010, three Atlantic 10 schools participated in March Madness: Richmond, Temple and Xavier. These schools accumulated three units for the conference. Had Butler been an Atlantic 10 member in 2010, the conference would have nearly tripled its Basketball Distribution Fund units, while also receiving a payout for Butler’s National Championship game appearance. If Butler and VCU were Atlantic 10 Conference members in 2011, the conference would have earned an additional ten Basketball Distribution Fund units and again, received a payout for Butler’s National Championship game appearance. Similarly, in 2012, the Atlantic 10 Conference could have received an additional two Basketball Distribution Fund units had VCU been a member of the conference.
While the amount of revenue generated from basketball contracts and the Basketball Distribution Fund is meager compared to the amount of money football generates, not every conference can woo college football powerhouses to their stables through conference realignment. Thus, what the Atlantic 10 Conference has accomplished through conference realignment is noteworthy. Although it will lose a historically sound basketball program in 2014 when Temple leaves for the Big East, it has replaced that leaving member with two noteworthy programs. Additionally, the Atlantic 10 has attracted two members which in recent years, the general public nationally has been interested in watching. With young, charismatic coaches that also boast successful track records in Brad Stevens and Shaka Smart, Butler and VCU respectively have garnered Cinderella story followings across the country. One can expect the Atlantic 10 to capitalize upon this should either team have similarly successful March Madness runs in the future.
Overall, while the Atlantic 10′s conference realignment path was not driven by football, it appears that the conference has been successful in laying a new foundation for its future.
Moneyball Meets March Madness
Guest author: Dr. Michael Lorenzen
Dr. Michael Lorenzen is the principal owner of Collegiate Athletics Strategy Advising, a firm that provides advisement services to collegiate athletics administrators. He’s also a frequent guest contributor to BusinessofCollegeSports.com.
As we approach the most exciting and intense time of year for collegiate basketball, the amount of attention and financial stakes associated with March Madness should give collegiate athletic administrators an opportunity to reflect on the state of their programs. Universities invest millions of dollars in basketball coaches and the dream of making it into the NCAA Tournament. With 68 spots and 344 schools it seems as if there are many opportunities for schools to participate in the dance.
The financial challenges of maintaining basketball are not quite as frightening as football, given that teams carry a fifth of the players, have fewer coaches, and proportionately smaller scale needs for things like training facilities, equipment and recruiting. Chartering airplanes multiple times per week can get pricey, but basketball doesn’t raise the same kind of red flags for administrators that the overwhelming price tag of big time football does. It also holds out the promise of prominence and profit with Cinderella stories and quick turnarounds that are more difficult to find in football.
Nonetheless, there is real and substantial money involved and the coaching carousel will go into full swing as athletic directors evaluate what’s happening with the one program in their portfolio that has the potential to make money (at least for the 224 schools that don’t have Division I football). As one athletic director recently asked me to start creating a potential candidate pool, I thought it might make sense to take an analytical swing at evaluating what kind of value various coaches bring to their schools.
Part of the genius of “Moneyball” was the application of well-considered statistics to a field of performance in a way that was very different than the norm practiced by insiders in the baseball world. Billy Beane and others found ways to optimize their investment in players by considering tangible, quantifiable contributors to value that were nonetheless not the sorts of things that baseball people consider.
With college coaches, the metrics most people point to are win-loss records, post-season appearances, championship wins, and, to a lesser degree, academic performance. In order to dig a little deeper, I pulled together some easily research-able measures that would indicate objectively the kind of value that coaches contribute. I included number of wins, Sagarin rating, total compensation (including bonus), attendance, and program profitability (total revenues minus total expenses), all using data from the 2011 season. I experimented with different weights and could easily be convinced to adjust them, but for the purposes of this analysis I used the following:
Wins 20%
Sagarin 10%
Attendance 15%
Profitability 55%
I made an effort to scale each measure up or down to create comparable ranges (e.g. wins are in the 20 range and salaries are in the millions), so wins were multiplied by 10,000 and Sagarin by 3,300. That yielded what I’ll call a “performance value”, which was a number in the millions for most programs.
To evaluate the value that each coach brought, I then applied that performance value number to the compensation number, yielding a “performance value per dollar of compensation”. All of that math ended up yielding numbers that ranged from a high of 4.97 (Jim Boeheim at Syracuse) to a low of .05 (Leonard Hamilton at Florida State) for the 68 teams that were in the 2011 Tournament and have publicly available salary data for their coaches (10 did not).
Granted that a snapshot from a single season is not statistically compelling compared to a trend over several years, but given the short time horizons under which coaches often operate the results still reveal some interesting conclusions.
The first slide, below, looks at some of the iconic coaches in the NCAA–all men who one might predict to deliver outstanding value given their records and salaries.
All had fairly successful seasons from a competitive, profitability, and attendance perspective and their value numbers give an idea of what “good” performance might look like.
Next up we have the top 10 performers, which tells a different story than that of the icons listed above.
The reason that all of these coaches have dramatically higher value ratings than their iconic colleagues is mostly that their salaries are substantially lower (with the exception of Sean Miller at Arizona). They deliver significant value in terms of wins, attendance, and overall profitability of their programs but they take a much smaller piece of the upside for themselves. If I’m an athletic administrator, my interpretation is that they are generating a very good return for my investment in them.
Finally, if I am an administrator at a small school with limited resources, I might look for coaches who are delivering good value in return for compensation that fits within my budgetary parameters. Here is the list of the top 10 value coaches who made less than $250,000 in 2011:
Eddie Biedenbeck had a remarkable year and the administration at UNC-Asheville should be tickled with the overall value that he and his team delivered. There is a nice grouping of coaches ranked #32 to #42, all of whom would cost a school less than $200,000 per year and still have the potential to deliver value. It is worth noting that the scale of that value in terms of gross profits or attendance will not be comparable to what a Duke or Syracuse might seek. However, if you’re representing a school with an overall budget that is a fifth or less of those universities, you might do well to focus on terrific value as a starting place for your coaching search.



