DI Conference Disbursements by the NCAA

[star2city]

http://www1.ncaa.org/finance/5-yr_conf_sum...al_Dist2006.htm

The table above gives the total revenue disbursement by the NCAA to the DI conferences. The Mid-Con gets the least amount of any DI conference. When television, tournament, and BCS payments are also added in, most major conferences have a total income well beyond $100 million. The SEC in turn disburses each of its member schools in excess of $10 million. After covering for operating expenses (salaries, officials), a conference like the Mid-Con disburses less than $100 k per school, from my understanding.

Total

Conf Basketball NCAA

Big 12 14,430,355 25,826,141

Big Sky 983,888 4,052,042

Big Ten 13,774,430 29,631,014

Horizon 1,967,776 4,600,220

Indepen 0 514,070

Mid-Cont 983,888 3,253,467

Mo Valley 2,951,664 7,353,438

Western 3,279,626 8,283,505

[NDSU grad]

Well, the difference in total allocated revenue from the NCAA can be accounted for almost solely in the GIA column. This makes sense since the Big Sky had eight members playing football when these numbers were calculated, while the Mid-Con only had two. That's about 380 extra grant-in-aids. However, each school receives this money individually, so you are in a way "rewarded" for having football (or a lot of grant-in-aids in general). It can be pretty misleading when reported on a conference basis. Obviously, a school such as Chicago State is going to have quite a bit lesser athletic budget than Montana, simply because they don't sponsor football. As such, their total allocation from the NCAA will be lower; however, their actual bottom line could be better (yeah, Chicago State's not the best example).

[siouxnanigans]

Well, the difference in total allocated revenue from the NCAA can be accounted for almost solely in the GIA column. This makes sense since the Big Sky had eight members playing football when these numbers were calculated, while the Mid-Con only had two. That's about 380 extra grant-in-aids. However, each school receives this money individually, so you are in a way "rewarded" for having football (or a lot of grant-in-aids in general). It can be pretty misleading when reported on a conference basis. Obviously, a school such as Chicago State is going to have quite a bit lesser athletic budget than Montana, simply because they don't sponsor football. As such, their total allocation from the NCAA will be lower; however, their actual bottom line could be better (yeah, Chicago State's not the best example).

Very valid point.