(12-31-2011 06:09 PM)NYCTUFan Wrote:  It’s the exact numbers you post here that demonstrate why when expansion is talked about; fans like me of “mid major teams” are so passionate about our teams being included. Its about the haves and have nots, and as things like Superconfrences are being talked about, schools like Temple need to get a seat at the big boys table or risk getting left out in the cold completely.

Temple was at the big boys table. And I really believe they will be again. There is a lot of support to bring you guys on board in the BE, so just be patient, it's gonna happen.

Where did these numbers come from? Does the BCS really include Purdue in the Big East?

(12-31-2011 01:13 PM)Boise fan Wrote:  Taking a look at the bowl revenue teams earned this year, the top dogs got the lions share, while the rest of us got the scraps. Knew that was the case with the BCS payouts overall, but the following really shows just how wide the gap is:




Big East:

W Vir $22.3
Rutgers $1.8
Lville $1.7
Cinci $1.4375
Pitt $0.9625
Pur $0.750

Total: $28,950,000
Estimated payout per team: $3,216,666.67

Congratulations to Big East for raiding Purdue from Big Ten!

(12-31-2011 04:37 PM)Boise fan Wrote:  

(12-31-2011 04:17 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-31-2011 04:07 PM)Boise fan Wrote:  

(12-31-2011 03:50 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  This is OT, but Fox News is by far more accurate than MSNBC, which is not much different than Saturday Night Live. A study by the UCLA School of Journalism found that Fox was actually the most accurate news channel.

Wow - All that info in my post, and you comment on my signature?

Is that apropos for a Fox News fan or what?

i posted this same info about two weeks ago. key implication for big east is that our per team payout will plunge with more mouths to feed.

Too bad I missed your post - though the key implication for the BE might not be as you suggest - could pick up more bowls, that could in turn increase payouts. And with the changing landscape, if the BCS bowls go on the market, who knows how the payouts will change.

But your opinion of the joining teams as "more mouths to feed" sure underscores your feelings...how much money did USF FB bring in to the BE this year again?

Dude, the new teams will have to bring in $6.4 million in new bowls to avoid costing us money. That is the equivalent of adding two Cotton Bowls. How on earth is that going to happen.

Bottom line is that the new teams do mean more mouths to feed, re bowls and tv.

(12-31-2011 10:31 PM)ArQ Wrote:  

(12-31-2011 01:13 PM)Boise fan Wrote:  Taking a look at the bowl revenue teams earned this year, the top dogs got the lions share, while the rest of us got the scraps. Knew that was the case with the BCS payouts overall, but the following really shows just how wide the gap is:




Big East:

W Vir $22.3
Rutgers $1.8
Lville $1.7
Cinci $1.4375
Pitt $0.9625
Pur $0.750

Total: $28,950,000
Estimated payout per team: $3,216,666.67

Congratulations to Big East for raiding Purdue from Big Ten!

Looks like I made an error when posting it - apologies!

*Fixed* - including payout figures.

(12-31-2011 11:40 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-31-2011 04:37 PM)Boise fan Wrote:  

(12-31-2011 04:17 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-31-2011 04:07 PM)Boise fan Wrote:  

(12-31-2011 03:50 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  This is OT, but Fox News is by far more accurate than MSNBC, which is not much different than Saturday Night Live. A study by the UCLA School of Journalism found that Fox was actually the most accurate news channel.

Wow - All that info in my post, and you comment on my signature?

Is that apropos for a Fox News fan or what?

i posted this same info about two weeks ago. key implication for big east is that our per team payout will plunge with more mouths to feed.

Too bad I missed your post - though the key implication for the BE might not be as you suggest - could pick up more bowls, that could in turn increase payouts. And with the changing landscape, if the BCS bowls go on the market, who knows how the payouts will change.

But your opinion of the joining teams as "more mouths to feed" sure underscores your feelings...how much money did USF FB bring in to the BE this year again?

Dude, the new teams will have to bring in $6.4 million in new bowls to avoid costing us money. That is the equivalent of adding two Cotton Bowls. How on earth is that going to happen.

Bottom line is that the new teams do mean more mouths to feed, re bowls and tv.

You're right, we shouldn't of came and let the BE collapse, and USF and Co. could of had fun in the "Alliance".

Do you ever have anything positive to say?

(12-31-2011 11:40 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-31-2011 04:37 PM)Boise fan Wrote:  

(12-31-2011 04:17 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-31-2011 04:07 PM)Boise fan Wrote:  

(12-31-2011 03:50 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  This is OT, but Fox News is by far more accurate than MSNBC, which is not much different than Saturday Night Live. A study by the UCLA School of Journalism found that Fox was actually the most accurate news channel.

Wow - All that info in my post, and you comment on my signature?

Is that apropos for a Fox News fan or what?

i posted this same info about two weeks ago. key implication for big east is that our per team payout will plunge with more mouths to feed.

Too bad I missed your post - though the key implication for the BE might not be as you suggest - could pick up more bowls, that could in turn increase payouts. And with the changing landscape, if the BCS bowls go on the market, who knows how the payouts will change.

But your opinion of the joining teams as "more mouths to feed" sure underscores your feelings...how much money did USF FB bring in to the BE this year again?

Dude, the new teams will have to bring in $6.4 million in new bowls to avoid costing us money. That is the equivalent of adding two Cotton Bowls. How on earth is that going to happen.

Bottom line is that the new teams do mean more mouths to feed, re bowls and tv.

No one should take that personally. The same observation would be true of any group of teams added to any BCS conference. Its a mathematical issue caused because there is only one BCS game and it pays so much better than any other bowl game. If AQ goes away, Quo's argument virtually dissappears. Conversely, if any of the new teams qualify for one of the top BCS bowl games causing 2 Big East teams to be in the BCS, then Quo's argument becomes wrong as earnings per team would increase.

This is one of the major reasons the Big East always stayed at just 8 teams---minimal dilution of earnings.

Meh, whatever.

Even those teams who do absolutely nothing (i.e. go winless) in a given season get a check from the football bowl association. You didn't expect Bama getting $16 mil less than LSU to go for naught, did you?

So, while Joecluelessfan complains about things being unequal, 1-11 FAU still wins. Hell, 0-12 Washington probably got fat for being 0-12 a few seasons back. Nice! I don't remember The U of Houston getting that lucky when their program was teetering on the edge after the John Jenkins days...

http://footballbowlassociation.com/facts/10fba_faq.pdf


Yeah, I get it. The system ain't perfect, but quit crying about it. EVERY school prez/AD/whomever that was there when this idea came about signed for it. What's done is done. Schools get paid to suck sometimes. Hell, I'd sign up for that if I could!

(01-01-2012 02:52 AM)AllPtsBulletin Wrote:  Meh, whatever.

Even those teams who do absolutely nothing (i.e. go winless) in a given season get a check from the football bowl association. You didn't expect Bama getting $16 mil less than LSU to go for naught, did you?

So, while Joecluelessfan complains about things being unequal, 1-11 FAU still wins. Hell, 0-12 Washington probably got fat for being 0-12 a few seasons back. Nice! I don't remember The U of Houston getting that lucky when their program was teetering on the edge after the John Jenkins days...

http://footballbowlassociation.com/facts/10fba_faq.pdf


Yeah, I get it. The system ain't perfect, but quit crying about it. EVERY school prez/AD/whomever that was there when this idea came about signed for it. What's done is done. Schools get paid to suck sometimes. Hell, I'd sign up for that if I could!

Nice to finally meet Joecluelessfan! Knew you were out there! Thanks for posting a link to the bowl propaganda - it's like reading the BCS website!

While it's nice you are real happy with the status quo, there are a lot...no, a ton...no, a majority of people who are unsatisfied with the way division 1-A CFB is run, especially the post season.

And while the bowls might spin that they "are primarily set up to benefit the universities that participate in the game and their conference partners", to those of us who have actually spent any time investigating the validity of these claims, it quickly becomes clear that these claims have little to do with the truth.

But don't take my word for it, go ahead and conduct your own investigation. Start with the constant yearly reports about schools losing money to go to the bowl games. Low attendance. Block ticket requirements for the participating schools. The no-bargaining policy bowls have with participating school accommodations. The selection process. The amount of money the bowls actually earn. How that money is spent. The incomes of those who run the bowls. The amount of money the bowls spend in perk vacations for school AD's, etc. in the guise of business meetings. Bowls that are under investigation for corruption. The question of whether they deserve their non-profit status, the uselessness of the Coaches Poll, the problems with the computer polls...the list goes on and on.

You see Joe, these questions wouldn't come up if things were on the up and up. They arise out of anger and dissatisfaction with what has become a glaringly obvious cash grab, to the detriment of the sport.

The "what's done is done" argument is astonishingly un-American, in that this country was founded on not accepting the status quo, especially when the system in power was so brazenly unfair. And while a sport can hardly be compared to a revolution, there are clear similarities that can lead to similar outcomes. When corruption becomes too much, a revolt occurs and they throw the bums out.

Change is coming, in one form or another. And while things may not improve in the short term, the goal has been, and always will be, a better CFB experience for everyone. Putting the universities first should be the priority, not the propaganda used to deceive those who don't know any better.

It would help our conference, if we didn't have as many teams failing to reach the goal of 6 wins this year.

For almost the last 15 years...the 6 BCS Conferences controlled approx 94% of all the Bowl $$$ out there.

However....15-20 years ago...Bowl $$$ were King (even came close to and even surpassed TV Rights $$$$) but now TV $$$$ are King...and for conferences like the SEC, Big Ten, and now Pac-12, etc....TV $$$$ blow away what conferences make off bowl games (minus travel/team expenses).

Bowls $$$ are still important...but the BIG prize is TV Contract $$$$ and/or your own Conf TV Network $$$$.

(01-01-2012 12:55 AM)Kronke Wrote:  

(12-31-2011 11:40 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-31-2011 04:37 PM)Boise fan Wrote:  

(12-31-2011 04:17 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-31-2011 04:07 PM)Boise fan Wrote:  Wow - All that info in my post, and you comment on my signature?

Is that apropos for a Fox News fan or what?

i posted this same info about two weeks ago. key implication for big east is that our per team payout will plunge with more mouths to feed.

Too bad I missed your post - though the key implication for the BE might not be as you suggest - could pick up more bowls, that could in turn increase payouts. And with the changing landscape, if the BCS bowls go on the market, who knows how the payouts will change.

But your opinion of the joining teams as "more mouths to feed" sure underscores your feelings...how much money did USF FB bring in to the BE this year again?

Dude, the new teams will have to bring in $6.4 million in new bowls to avoid costing us money. That is the equivalent of adding two Cotton Bowls. How on earth is that going to happen.

Bottom line is that the new teams do mean more mouths to feed, re bowls and tv.

You're right, we shouldn't of came and let the BE collapse...

We had to add 3 teams to avoid collapse, but we didnt have to go from 8 to 10 as that means more mouths to feed. Time will tell if it was the right move.

We really need the Big East to get back to where it was in 2007/2008 area where we had a top 5 team (wva) and four teams ranked in the top 25 (wva, ru, uc, and usf)

(01-01-2012 09:32 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  We had to add 3 teams to avoid collapse, but we didnt have to go from 8 to 10 as that means more mouths to feed. Time will tell if it was the right move.

Won't mean anything once the new TV media deal goes into effect. It will only be for one year where each Big East football team gets less than what they got previously.

(01-01-2012 09:45 AM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  We really need the Big East to get back to where it was in 2007/2008 area where we had a top 5 team (wva) and four teams ranked in the top 25 (wva, ru, uc, and usf)

Yep, but it is unlikely because of the TV dollar disparity. Before 2009, the Big East was closer money-wise
to the other major conferences because we had BCS parity and those were the real big football dollars. But now, TV dollars have totally swamped BCS dollars. They have skyrocketed while BCS dollars have stagnated. So now the sec, pac, big, and big12 teams earn 10-15 million per year more in TV, and we've fallen way behind.

The BCS benefitted the BigEast more than any conference, because it gifted us bowl money parity with the other majors that we didnt deserve. But TV is different. Our new deal will still leave us far behind.

(12-30-2011 02:48 AM)Boise fan Wrote:  

(12-30-2011 01:37 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Whatever you think about the bowl system, that chart is completely misleading. (Shocking from the Huffington Post!) The power conferences split their bowl money equally among their schools - the team that goes to the BCS gets the same amount as the team that stays at home.

Actually, the Huffington Post did use a footer under the picture graphic that pointed out revenue sharing.

"*Bowl payouts listed are approximate in some cases and culled from a variety of sources. Payouts can be divided among schools in the same conference as the bowl participant, widely affecting the dollar amount that ultimately goes into a school's coffers."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/29...74808.html

So though the graphic may seem misleading to the layman, it still outlines the disparity of income from bowl appearances, and points out that the revenue earned may be shared.

It was misleading, period. Like an advertisement that blares "get a free car if you attend our informational meeting"!!!! with tiny fine print saying you have to buy a condo to get get the car.

(12-30-2011 11:23 AM)BSUTOP25 Wrote:  I'll simply repeat .. the #7 team in the country played in an obscure bowl for peanuts while 7-5 teams played in more lucrative bowls, for approximately 3X the payout. Conference revenue sharing aside, that fact is absurd.

Agree and disagree. Agree in that if we have the BCS, the ten BCS bowl slots should go to the top ten teams in the BCS standings. Of course by that criteria, Arkansas was screwed worse than Boise, since they were #6.

But disagree because Boise's rank is almost surely inflated by a soft schedule. If they played in the SEC do they end up #7? Almost surely no. Maybe they go 8-4.

(01-02-2012 11:50 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-30-2011 11:23 AM)BSUTOP25 Wrote:  I'll simply repeat .. the #7 team in the country played in an obscure bowl for peanuts while 7-5 teams played in more lucrative bowls, for approximately 3X the payout. Conference revenue sharing aside, that fact is absurd.

Agree and disagree. Agree in that if we have the BCS, the ten BCS bowl slots should go to the top ten teams in the BCS standings. Of course by that criteria, Arkansas was screwed worse than Boise, since they were #6.

But disagree because Boise's rank is almost surely inflated by a soft schedule. If they played in the SEC do they end up #7? Almost surely no. Maybe they go 8-4.

Who do they lose to, in your world, besides LSU OR Alabama? Boise pasted SEC East Champ Georgia by 14 (in Georgia).