Not sure why McMurphy arbitrarily cut off his numbers in 07. I wonder if it was because in 06 the BE had Boise, Louisville, and Rutgers all highly ranked in final BCS poll. You can make numbers look however you want them if you arbitrarily cut them off at particular points. So I decided to add them up including 2006. Hey, they can cut them off at 07, so we can cut them off at 06. What's the difference. The difference is that by cutting them off at 07 makes them look worse for BE. These are using 2014 conf. membership (WVU to B12, etc.)

Here are McMurphy's Numbers.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...-surprises

1. SEC 407 points
2. Big 12 361 points
3. Big Ten 259 points
4. Pac-12 224 points
5. ACC 184 points
6. Big East 130 points
7. BYU 31 points
8. MWC 30 points
9. C-USA 5 points
10. MAC 4 points
11 (tie). Notre Dame, WAC and Sun Belt 0 points
------

Now if you add the 06 season as follows:

1. SEC: 91
2. Big 10: 70
3. Big East: 48
4. Big 12: 36
5. Pac 12: 34
6. ACC: 25
7. ND: 15
8. BYU: 6

So you now come up with:

1. SEC: 498
2. Big 12: 397
3. B10: 329
4. Pac: 258
5. Big East + BYU: 215 (since BYU is rumored to be added)
6. ACC: 209
7. Big East: 178
8. BYU: 37
9. MWC: 30
10: ND: 15
11. CUSA: 5
12: MAC: 4
13: WAC/Sun Belt: 0

I don't think McMurphy was trying to be subversive. He was merely using the last 5 seasons. Not sure why 5 seems to be the magic number, but it's what he chose to use. Yes, if you use 6 seasons, or 4 seasons, the BE vs. ACC is a very close matchup and if you add BYU, the BE beats the ACC. 2007 was a down year for Boise and while the 2014 BE had 4 ranked teams, they were #21 and lower.

The point is that if you use 6, the BE nearly equals the ACC and if you include BYU, the BE BEATS the ACC. Yet he chose to use 5 for some reason.

It had been mentioned in the media that one of the criteria they may use in splitting revenue was the last 5 years top 25 performance by conference.

(06-19-2012 01:41 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  The point is that if you use 6, the BE nearly equals the ACC and if you include BYU, the BE BEATS the ACC. Yet he chose to use 5 for some reason.

Meh, people tend to look at things in 5 year increments. As noted above I doubt it was subversive as nobody realistically looks at things on a 6 year pane. That being said, I like the figures I see from the 6 year window as it supports the Big East belongs in the conversation with the other conferences. They are not as far away from the top as the MAC, Sun Belt, C-USA, etc. are from them.

(06-19-2012 01:46 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(06-19-2012 01:41 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  The point is that if you use 6, the BE nearly equals the ACC and if you include BYU, the BE BEATS the ACC. Yet he chose to use 5 for some reason.

Meh, people tend to look at things in 5 year increments. As noted above I doubt it was subversive as nobody realistically looks at things on a 6 year pane. That being said, I like the figures I see from the 6 year window as it supports the Big East belongs in the conversation with the other conferences. They are not as far away from the top as the MAC, Sun Belt, C-USA, etc. are from them.

Except that the BCS has always looked at things in 4 year increments. You go back 4 years and again the BE and ACC are pretty darn close, and if the BE adds BYU, they pass the ACC.

The powers that be will determine the outcome that they want and then find plausibly objective criteria to fit that outcome. They did that in the current system in determining the 6 AQ conferences and they'll do it again where they'll almost assuredly cut the power group down to 5. The main thing that the Big East realistically can do is argue that it deserves a larger slice compared to the current non-AQ conferences. It can try to argue that it ought to get the same revenue share as the 5 power conferences, but it won't realistically work no matter what stats are thrown out there. The fix is in to get the "desirable" outcome for the SEC and Big Ten that can still be argued to be objective (and therefore lawsuit proof).

F

(06-19-2012 02:00 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  The powers that be will determine the outcome that they want and then find plausibly objective criteria to fit that outcome. They did that in the current system in determining the 6 AQ conferences and they'll do it again where they'll almost assuredly cut the power group down to 5. The main thing that the Big East realistically can do is argue that it deserves a larger slice compared to the current non-AQ conferences. It can try to argue that it ought to get the same revenue share as the 5 power conferences, but it won't realistically work no matter what stats are thrown out there. The fix is in to get the "desirable" outcome for the SEC and Big Ten that can still be argued to be objective (and therefore lawsuit proof).

Frank correct...yes the BIG EAST should fight like hell to get a full share but try to settle to be as close as receiving a "Full Share" as possible.

According to Joe Schad the league doesn't expect to make less from the Revenue cut then they are receiving now due to the fact that overall revenue is going to be way up in general

I think it should be at least 10 years and you drop the last year and replace it with each successive year. There is too much variability from one season to the next to only include 4 or 5 or even 6. For example, in 2005 brings the BE back down:

Big 10- 87 points
Big 12- 67 points
PAc-12- 58 points
SEC- 47 points
ACC- 47 points
ND- 21 points
BE- 7 points

I realize different systems, but a place here or there doesn't really matter. I think what is important is to get a big enough sample size that year to year noise is minimized, and you blunt the high and low years to result in some sort of average preformance over time. Could even weight more recent years if you want.

(06-19-2012 02:24 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  I think it should be at least 10 years and you drop the last year and replace it with each successive year. There is too much variability from one season to the next to only include 4 or 5 or even 6. For example, in 2005 brings the BE back down:

Big 10- 87 points
Big 12- 67 points
PAc-12- 58 points
SEC- 47 points
ACC- 47 points
ND- 21 points
BE- 7 points

I realize different systems, but a place here or there doesn't really matter. I think what is important is to get a big enough sample size that year to year noise is minimized, and you blunt the high and low years to result in some sort of average preformance over time. Could even weight more recent years if you want.

I don't buy your premise. These systems and conference membership are so completely different since 2005, that going 10 years back gives us less accuracy, not more. It's also not just a bit different as you assert, but very different. I understand it makes you feel good as a TCU fan, but your argument is very weak.

Interestingly the Big East is likely to rack up some points in this next season. Currently having teams in three conferences (and some in different divisions) we could have the conference champion in each of those conferences. It isn't impossible to imagine 2 current Big East teams, 2 C-USA team, and one MWC team finish in the top 25 next season.

(06-19-2012 02:00 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  The powers that be will determine the outcome that they want and then find plausibly objective criteria to fit that outcome. They did that in the current system in determining the 6 AQ conferences and they'll do it again where they'll almost assuredly cut the power group down to 5. The main thing that the Big East realistically can do is argue that it deserves a larger slice compared to the current non-AQ conferences. It can try to argue that it ought to get the same revenue share as the 5 power conferences, but it won't realistically work no matter what stats are thrown out there. The fix is in to get the "desirable" outcome for the SEC and Big Ten that can still be argued to be objective (and therefore lawsuit proof).

What BE needs to do is get a set of good lawyers and prepare for a massive lawsuit if they try to pay BE less using some "criteria" or spin to get the numbers they want. I hope this all end up in the courts and let the congress determine the outcome. Leaving the whole thing to people with ulterior motives like Swofford and Selvie to decide anything is wrong.

Maybe, just maybe we can end up with 16 teams playoff and Big 4 or 5 can screw themselves.

(06-19-2012 03:11 PM)Brian Reading Wrote:  

(06-19-2012 02:24 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  I think it should be at least 10 years and you drop the last year and replace it with each successive year. There is too much variability from one season to the next to only include 4 or 5 or even 6. For example, in 2005 brings the BE back down:

Big 10- 87 points
Big 12- 67 points
PAc-12- 58 points
SEC- 47 points
ACC- 47 points
ND- 21 points
BE- 7 points

I realize different systems, but a place here or there doesn't really matter. I think what is important is to get a big enough sample size that year to year noise is minimized, and you blunt the high and low years to result in some sort of average preformance over time. Could even weight more recent years if you want.

I don't buy your premise. These systems and conference membership are so completely different since 2005, that going 10 years back gives us less accuracy, not more. It's also not just a bit different as you assert, but very different. I understand it makes you feel good as a TCU fan, but your argument is very weak.

The conference membership argument is irrelevant- everyone agrees we should use current membership. It is true, the systems to rank made some changes, but if an apples to apples comparison is so important, you can always go back and apply the current system to previous results. The only thing you can't do is generate a Harris poll, but the Harris and AP always track very closely, so you could just use the AP.

To me, it would be better to have a long period of analysis, so that there aren't big swings in revenue year to year.

(06-19-2012 07:45 PM)SF Husky Wrote:  

(06-19-2012 02:00 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  The powers that be will determine the outcome that they want and then find plausibly objective criteria to fit that outcome. They did that in the current system in determining the 6 AQ conferences and they'll do it again where they'll almost assuredly cut the power group down to 5. The main thing that the Big East realistically can do is argue that it deserves a larger slice compared to the current non-AQ conferences. It can try to argue that it ought to get the same revenue share as the 5 power conferences, but it won't realistically work no matter what stats are thrown out there. The fix is in to get the "desirable" outcome for the SEC and Big Ten that can still be argued to be objective (and therefore lawsuit proof).

What BE needs to do is get a set of good lawyers and prepare for a massive lawsuit if they try to pay BE less using some "criteria" or spin to get the numbers they want. I hope this all end up in the courts and let the congress determine the outcome. Leaving the whole thing to people with ulterior motives like Swofford and Selvie to decide anything is wrong.

Maybe, just maybe we can end up with 16 teams playoff and Big 4 or 5 can screw themselves.

I agree. Even though the likelihood of winning a suit is small, the other leagues and networks could be induced into a settlement rather than go through the depositions. I suspect ESPN, Fox, and the commissioners would rather not testify under oath and air their dirty laundry.

If no one was able to sue the BCS, no one is going to be able to sue the power conferences under this new system. The lack of equality is NOT the basis of an antitrust lawsuit. Instead, the test is whether the aggrieved parties would have done better in a complete free market system, which almost certainly wouldn't be the case here. Even if you were to show the power conferences were an illegal cartel, proving damages would be extremely hard because the non-power conferences likely would make even *less* money if the free market were left to just pay for the most popular schools that draw the highest ratings.

The comparison is the USFL case against the NFL, where the USFL "won" its antitrust lawsuit but the court only awarded $1 in damages because the USFL's revenue issues and TV desirability had nothing to do with the NFL violating antitrust law. That's why no one has sued the BCS - the non-AQ conferences would have made even less money if the BCS didn't exist. It's going to be the same in the new system - the non-power conferences will get paid more than they would have received in a free market system, which means there aren't damages (and defeats the purpose of filing a lawsuit).

(06-19-2012 11:07 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  If no one was able to sue the BCS, no one is going to be able to sue the power conferences under this new system. The lack of equality is NOT the basis of an antitrust lawsuit. Instead, the test is whether the aggrieved parties would have done better in a complete free market system, which almost certainly wouldn't be the case here. Even if you were to show the power conferences were an illegal cartel, proving damages would be extremely hard because the non-power conferences likely would make even *less* money if the free market were left to just pay for the most popular schools that draw the highest ratings.

The comparison is the USFL case against the NFL, where the USFL "won" its antitrust lawsuit but the court only awarded $1 in damages because the USFL's revenue issues and TV desirability had nothing to do with the NFL violating antitrust law. That's why no one has sued the BCS - the non-AQ conferences would have made even less money if the BCS didn't exist. It's going to be the same in the new system - the non-power conferences will get paid more than they would have received in a free market system, which means there aren't damages (and defeats the purpose of filing a lawsuit).

I wouldn't sue the BCS, I would sue the B12 for tortious interference. They deliberately induced WVU to break their contract with the BE, hell they even paid for part of it. Once I got into discovery, I start asking for a bunch of information from ESPN and FOX to see what role they played in it. Maybe that would force a settlement, maybe not, but I wouldn't just lay there and take it.

^^^ Along with the ACC and ESPN. We've heard the comments made in pubic by the BC AD in regards to taking Pitt and BC. I would love to see all the written discovery (memos, email correspondence, etc.) and would be requesting the depositions of Swofford, the ACC Presidents (including Pitt and Syracuse) and ESPN execs right away.

(06-20-2012 07:41 AM)MiddleTiger Wrote:  I wouldn't sue the BCS, I would sue the B12 for tortious interference. They deliberately induced WVU to break their contract with the BE, hell they even paid for part of it. Once I got into discovery, I start asking for a bunch of information from ESPN and FOX to see what role they played in it. Maybe that would force a settlement, maybe not, but I wouldn't just lay there and take it.

It's about 99.9% likely that this option is completely foreclosed. The Big East settled with WVU presumably with some language stating that this is the full extent of compensation for WVU breaking its contract and that the Big East waives any future claims relating to the breach. At the same time, there is likely language in the contract between WVU and the Big 12 that WVU will indemnify them for any claims as a result of that breach of contract. A court would likely dismiss a Big East lawsuit against the Big 12 immediately - they didn't file the claim against the Big 12 prior to settling with WVU (which is when the Big East should have done this if it really wanted to go after the Big 12) and that court will likely recognize the payment that WVU is providing as full compensation for any damages to the Big East (meaning that the Big East is seeking a windfall from the Big 12 for the same subject matter of the WVU lawsuit, which won't fly). Whatever claims the Big East might have had against the Big 12 effectively went out the window when it settled with WVU. You wouldn't get close to the discovery stage.

(06-20-2012 08:27 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  ^^^ Along with the ACC and ESPN. We've heard the comments made in pubic by the BC AD in regards to taking Pitt and BC. I would love to see all the written discovery (memos, email correspondence, etc.) and would be requesting the depositions of Swofford, the ACC Presidents (including Pitt and Syracuse) and ESPN execs right away.

Guys - as messed up of a legal system that we might have in this country (I know this as a lawyer myself), you can't just lob in a random lawsuit and start requesting documents from the other party (and even if you did, you're going to incur massive expenses trying to pry those documents out of a party like the Walt Disney Company, so you better make sure you have a case where you legitimately believe you can win it). These conferences and TV networks aren't idiots - they know what they're doing and have the best legal representation that money can buy out there (which is partially why even politically motivated state AGs, such as the one in Utah, couldn't find a plausible way to challenge the BCS in court). All of the talk about avoiding tortious interference claims is about dotting the "i"s and crossing the "t"s from a legal perspective, but it's not the primary source of any claims because it's extremely hard to prove and, to the extent that there's a claim, it's fairly quantifiable in terms of the monetary damages. The primary source of claims is between the conference and the school that's leaving because those are the two parties that have an actual contractual obligation with each other. You don't need an extremely expensive fishing expedition through millions of emails (yes, literally millions of emails when it comes to electronic discovery) to make a claim of a breach of contract - it was right there in front of everyone when the contract said WVU's exit date was supposed to be Date X and WVU then said it was going to leave on Date Y.

(06-20-2012 08:42 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(06-20-2012 07:41 AM)MiddleTiger Wrote:  I wouldn't sue the BCS, I would sue the B12 for tortious interference. They deliberately induced WVU to break their contract with the BE, hell they even paid for part of it. Once I got into discovery, I start asking for a bunch of information from ESPN and FOX to see what role they played in it. Maybe that would force a settlement, maybe not, but I wouldn't just lay there and take it.

It's about 99.9% likely that this option is completely foreclosed. The Big East settled with WVU presumably with some language stating that this is the full extent of compensation for WVU breaking its contract and that the Big East waives any future claims relating to the breach. At the same time, there is likely language in the contract between WVU and the Big 12 that WVU will indemnify them for any claims as a result of that breach of contract. A court would likely dismiss a Big East lawsuit against the Big 12 immediately - they didn't file the claim against the Big 12 prior to settling with WVU (which is when the Big East should have done this if it really wanted to go after the Big 12) and that court will likely recognize the payment that WVU is providing as full compensation for any damages to the Big East (meaning that the Big East is seeking a windfall from the Big 12 for the same subject matter of the WVU lawsuit, which won't fly). Whatever claims the Big East might have had against the Big 12 effectively went out the window when it settled with WVU. You wouldn't get close to the discovery stage.

You can't induce a member of a conference to leave and turn around to try to underpay the same conference because you screwed them. This is exactly what B12 and ACC did. Swofford and Neinas out in the open flapping their jaws about Power 5 conferences is exactly what this is about. BE suffered damage because of their actions. As a result, there should be an angle for lawsuit especially if they tried to remove BE from big boys' table due to their actions.

I doubt BE is that dumb to sign away all the rights to sue B12 in the WVU settlement. If they did, BE lawyers should be fired right away. I might not be a lawyer, but I used enough lawyers during my business dealings to know how they operate. There is no freaking way BE would be that stupid to give away all the rights to sue just for $20M. That's peanuts.