http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/06...-team.html

Quote:• How will the revenue be distributed? The new television deal could pull in between $350 to $400 million, or about double the payout of the current bowl package. Under the BCS model, the six major conferences take home the same payout, about $22 million each, with about $2.6 million each for to the other five conferences.

charlotteobserver

If this is true, I think Louisville might stay and BYU joins.

Quote:Under the BCS model, the six major conferences take home the same payout, about $22 million each, with about $2.6 million each for to the other five conferences.

That statement can't be true. While the total number might be right ($145M), conferences that place 2 teams in BCS bowls get twice as much as conferences that place 1.

Not correct cougar,the second team did not earn a full amount

Cubanbull - That's correct. The 2nd BCS team is worth about an extra 20% share. It's not a full share.

(06-20-2012 07:34 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Cubanbull - That's correct. The 2nd BCS team is worth about an extra 20% share. It's not a full share.

Anyone knows what happens to the LEFTOVER BCS Bowl $$$$ when the 2nd team from a conf also gets a bid?

Most knew that the 2nd team (and their conf) never got a full share...but those full share $$$$ were there in every budget...ready to be handed out but where does it go when its not fully given out to the participating team?

Did it go into a slush fund that the CEO's of the Fiesta and Orange Bowl used to entertain Conf Commissioners, AD's and their wives?

Where did those $$$$ end up at when full shares were not paid?

Article Wrote:There also has been discussion about using strength-of-schedule component, or some equivalent to a metric like the RPI, used for basketball, but not the current computer-based system used by the Bowl Championship Series.

RPI works for basketball, because of the shear number of games played. 345 teams each play about 30 games, so that's a sample size of over 10 thousand games. For FBS football, there are 124 teams, each playing about 12 games or under 1,500.

That said, I like an RPI model way better than a coaches / media poll... and maybe even better than a selection comittee. My preference is still top 3 conference champions (based on RPI) plus an at-large, based on whatever gets it passed.

(06-20-2012 07:36 AM)KnightLight Wrote:  

(06-20-2012 07:34 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Cubanbull - That's correct. The 2nd BCS team is worth about an extra 20% share. It's not a full share.

Anyone knows what happens to the LEFTOVER BCS Bowl $$$$ when the 2nd team from a conf also gets a bid?

Most knew that the 2nd team (and their conf) never got a full share...but those full share $$$$ were there in every budget...ready to be handed out but where does it go when its not fully given out to the participating team?

Did it go into a slush fund that the CEO's of the Fiesta and Orange Bowl used to entertain Conf Commissioners, AD's and their wives?

Where did those $$$$ end up at when full shares were not paid?

I don't know, but I would guess that they just pre-allocated percentages to be distributed in a certain way, which would take care of it. Then the only variable is how much money the games generated. In that manner, there is no surplus.

But you seem to think a full share was allocated to a second team, but it was not paid. Again, I have no idea, but why would they even set it up that way, and then not follow through with it? Doesn't make sense.

(06-20-2012 07:12 AM)Cubanbull Wrote:  Not correct cougar,the second team did not earn a full amount

OK - I guess I was wrong.

But the statement is still incorrect. The conferences do not "each take home the same payout" i.e. about $22M from the current BCS.

(06-20-2012 07:56 AM)TripleA Wrote:  I don't know, but I would guess that they just pre-allocated percentages to be distributed in a certain way, which would take care of it. Then the only variable is how much money the games generated. In that manner, there is no surplus.

But you seem to think a full share was allocated to a second team, but it was not paid. Again, I have no idea, but why would they even set it up that way, and then not follow through with it? Doesn't make sense.

I think that you're correct. It's likely that there are just pre-allocated percentages. Here are the payouts from the 2010-11 season:

http://aol.sportingnews.com/ncaa-footbal...onferences

The Big Ten, SEC and Pac-12 (with 2 BCS bids each) received $27.2 million each compared to $21.2 million for each of the other AQ conferences with 1 BCS bid. That represents about a 28% share for the 2nd BCS bid. The MWC received an additional partial share for TCU. Assuming that the MWC would have made around $4 million like the WAC if it didn't have a BCS bid, that made the non-AQ BCS bid worth around $8 million to the MWC.

........Swofford, Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany, Pac-12 commissioner Larry Scott and Big 12 commissioner Chuck Neinas want to include conference champions in the selection criteria.........

When did Neinas change his mind on this? I thought the Big 12 was siding with the SEC and calling for the "best 4" teams regardless of conference championships.

(06-20-2012 07:56 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(06-20-2012 07:36 AM)KnightLight Wrote:  

(06-20-2012 07:34 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Cubanbull - That's correct. The 2nd BCS team is worth about an extra 20% share. It's not a full share.

Anyone knows what happens to the LEFTOVER BCS Bowl $$$$ when the 2nd team from a conf also gets a bid?

Most knew that the 2nd team (and their conf) never got a full share...but those full share $$$$ were there in every budget...ready to be handed out but where does it go when its not fully given out to the participating team?

Did it go into a slush fund that the CEO's of the Fiesta and Orange Bowl used to entertain Conf Commissioners, AD's and their wives?

Where did those $$$$ end up at when full shares were not paid?

I don't know, but I would guess that they just pre-allocated percentages to be distributed in a certain way, which would take care of it. Then the only variable is how much money the games generated. In that manner, there is no surplus.

But you seem to think a full share was allocated to a second team, but it was not paid. Again, I have no idea, but why would they even set it up that way, and then not follow through with it? Doesn't make sense.

The current BCS payout totals about $183M for this past season. The breakdown per conference (based on what's been reported for the 2009, 2010, and 2011 seasons) is as follows (2011 payout totals in parenthesis):

AQ conferences: 12.2% ($22.3M) each for the first team, 3.3% ($6.1M) for the second team.

Non-AQ conferences: varying amounts ranging from 1.4%-2.3% ($2M-$4M) each. I have no idea why there is such a discrepancy, but it's not equal and it does not correspond to membership numbers. If a non-AQ makes a BCS game, the payout is increased to around 7% for an AQ spot or around 5.5% for an at-large spot (note: the increase over the baseline for the non-AQs for the AQ spot is a bit more than just adding on a second-AQ-team share, but far less than a first-AQ-team share; the increase for making an at-large spot is about the same as a second-AQ-team share) (TCU qualified for an AQ spot in both 2009 and 2010, Boise qualified as an at-large in 2009)

ND: 1% ($1.8M)

Navy: 0.1% ($100K)
Army: 0.1% ($100K)
BYU: 0.1% ($100K) (note: I assumed this based on Army and Navy. I cannot find BYU's payout as an indy and I doubt they have the same deal as ND)

FCS: 1.3% ($2.4M) (for all of FCS, not per-conference)

(06-20-2012 09:13 AM)Gray Avenger Wrote:  ........Swofford, Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany, Pac-12 commissioner Larry Scott and Big 12 commissioner Chuck Neinas want to include conference champions in the selection criteria.........

When did Neinas change his mind on this? I thought the Big 12 was siding with the SEC and calling for the "best 4" teams regardless of conference championships.

Neinas has made the statement that he feels that it should be top 4, but would be open to conference champions. I'd say he's more on the top 4 side, though.

CommuterBob,

That's probably right, but I am wondering if BYU currently get anything. They are recent independent and weren't that way the last time the BCS contract was negotiated. Granted, they probably signed some contract afterward, but given the money wasn't already factored in, it's at least possible they aren't getting any guaranteed money at the moment.

(06-20-2012 09:19 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  CommuterBob,

That's probably right, but I am wondering if BYU currently get anything. They are recent independent and weren't that way the last time the BCS contract was negotiated. Granted, they probably signed some contract afterward, but given the money wasn't already factored in, it's at least possible they aren't getting any guaranteed money at the moment.

In 2010-11, Army and Navy each received $100,000 each from the BCS payouts, while Notre Dame received $1.7 million:

http://aol.sportingnews.com/ncaa-footbal...onferences

BYU is probably getting something - out of any school, they have more high profile politicians (e.g. Orrin Hatch) that have publicly squawked about the BCS system than anyone else.

(06-20-2012 09:22 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(06-20-2012 09:19 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  CommuterBob,

That's probably right, but I am wondering if BYU currently get anything. They are recent independent and weren't that way the last time the BCS contract was negotiated. Granted, they probably signed some contract afterward, but given the money wasn't already factored in, it's at least possible they aren't getting any guaranteed money at the moment.

In 2010-11, Army and Navy each received $100,000 each from the BCS payouts, while Notre Dame received $1.7 million:

http://aol.sportingnews.com/ncaa-footbal...onferences

BYU is probably getting something - out of any school, they have more high profile politicians (e.g. Orrin Hatch) that have publicly squawked about the BCS system than anyone else.

I'm very certain BYU is getting something. Also, I've read that ND gets about $4M if it makes a BCS game. That was a new wrinkle to their deal that was added in 2006 (?). Before that, they got a minimal amount (like $100K), but would get a full BCS share for themselves if they made a BCS game.

The historical performace going back to 1998 hurts the Big East.

USF and UConn weren't even 1-A in 1998. Boise didn't start its great run until 2002.

The Big East is probably better off if the historical performance goes back only 10 years.

(06-20-2012 09:18 AM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(06-20-2012 09:13 AM)Gray Avenger Wrote:  ........Swofford, Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany, Pac-12 commissioner Larry Scott and Big 12 commissioner Chuck Neinas want to include conference champions in the selection criteria.........

When did Neinas change his mind on this? I thought the Big 12 was siding with the SEC and calling for the "best 4" teams regardless of conference championships.

Neinas has made the statement that he feels that it should be top 4, but would be open to conference champions. I'd say he's more on the top 4 side, though.

Wouldn't UT / OU have better shot if it was conf champs?

(06-20-2012 10:06 AM)3601 Wrote:  The historical performace going back to 1998 hurts the Big East.

USF and UConn weren't even 1-A in 1998. Boise didn't start its great run until 2002.

The Big East is probably better off if the historical performance goes back only 10 years.

Why should conferences be rewarded or penalized for performances that occurred some 10+ years ago ?

Why not based on what you did this year?

Is this really that good for the BE?