this should be fun

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...tty-gritty

Another article with absolutely no new information. It's been over two months and nothing has been decided. Nothing will be decided either until probably February. They have time, so they're going to take it.

(09-04-2012 02:39 PM)TIGER-PAUL Wrote:  this should be
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...tty-gritty

Looking at the membership of the revenue commitee does not give me any confidence that the Big East will be treated very well. I could easily see the MAC, ACC, and MW push hard for the Big East to be treated just like the current non-AQs. Hopefully Arescos relationships with Delaney and others will help.

I can't see why any of the "Contract Conferences" would be willing to give up their contract bowl revenue. Delany and Slive are going to be 100% on the same page on that one, and when they're 100% on the same page, what they say becomes the rule. Now, non-contract bowls might feature more equitable revenue distribution (although "equitable" might mean more like the old BCS revenue distribution system).

Agreed, I don't see a scenario in which a contract conference agrees to take its big stack of money from the Rose/Champs/Orange Bowl and divide it with others. Won't happen.

So the question is how to divide money from the "Final Four" and the "access bowl". IMO almost all of that money should be divided based on who gets into those games and not on "past performance". If they are dividing up proceeds from the 2014-2015 games, it ought to be based on who played in the games in 2014-2015, not on some ranking of teams or conferences from five or ten years ago.

I could see them doing a winner take all (or most of it) with the final 4, not so much the access bowls.

(09-04-2012 03:20 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-04-2012 02:39 PM)TIGER-PAUL Wrote:  this should be
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...tty-gritty

Looking at the membership of the revenue commitee does not give me any confidence that the Big East will be treated very well. I could easily see the MAC, ACC, and MW push hard for the Big East to be treated just like the current non-AQs. Hopefully Arescos relationships with Delaney and others will help.

Well the Big East didn't exactly make friends with the other "non-contract" conferences, so they should certainly expect them to work against the Big East on this. Doubtful the contract conferences are going to sacrifice any of their cut for the Big East. Basically the Big East may be able to get a really good TV deal coming up, but they have a lot of things working against them in terms of getting a big boy share of this revenue.

(09-04-2012 05:07 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(09-04-2012 03:20 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-04-2012 02:39 PM)TIGER-PAUL Wrote:  this should be
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...tty-gritty

Looking at the membership of the revenue commitee does not give me any confidence that the Big East will be treated very well. I could easily see the MAC, ACC, and MW push hard for the Big East to be treated just like the current non-AQs. Hopefully Arescos relationships with Delaney and others will help.

Well the Big East didn't exactly make friends with the other "non-contract" conferences, so they should certainly expect them to work against the Big East on this. Doubtful the contract conferences are going to sacrifice any of their cut for the Big East. Basically the Big East may be able to get a really good TV deal coming up, but they have a lot of things working against them in terms of getting a big boy share of this revenue.

lol. What were they supposed to do? Invite the other conferences over for a play date? The system was what the system was. As you can see, all the hollering about getting rid of AQ status meant nothing.

I suspect every league outside of the power conferences will be signficanty worse off after the new system goes into affect. The only thing the non-AQ's got for thier trouble is adding one more conference to the list of non-AQ conferences scrambling for a single BCS slot. In fact, they even lost the guarantee that there will even be a single BCS slot reserved for them.

The reality is all these conferences are doing what they believe is in thier best interests. Im not suggesting that the non-AQ's are doing anything wrong (though I do believe they have maybe let thier dislike of the Big East blind them to the extreme lack of access they will receive in this new plan). I was simply pointing out that the structure of the revenue committee probably couldnt be worse for the Big East.

I wouldn't say getting rid of AQ meant nothing. The playoff even if a short term negative will grow because all playoffs grow. I don't like the contract bowls, but they are a necessary evil to get the playoff. I think it will eventually make it to 8, and maybe that's it but if it gets to 8 with a selection committee I'm happy. It's never going to be fair for ECU, and nothing is ever going to be given to us.

(09-04-2012 06:25 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  I wouldn't say getting rid of AQ meant nothing. The playoff even if a short term negative will grow because all playoffs grow. I don't like the contract bowls, but they are a necessary evil to get the playoff. I think it will eventually make it to 8, and maybe that's it but if it gets to 8 with a selection committee I'm happy. It's never going to be fair for ECU, and nothing is ever going to be given to us.

If the non-contract conferences can hang on long enough for the playoffs to expand to 8----I think the non-contract conferences will have a very reasonable shot at having a representive in the mix on a yearly basis. Unfortunately, thats a minimum of 13 years away. Thats way to slow for me---but there isnt alot we can really do.

(09-04-2012 06:25 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  It's never going to be fair for ECU, and nothing is ever going to be given to us.

(09-04-2012 06:43 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-04-2012 06:25 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  I wouldn't say getting rid of AQ meant nothing. The playoff even if a short term negative will grow because all playoffs grow. I don't like the contract bowls, but they are a necessary evil to get the playoff. I think it will eventually make it to 8, and maybe that's it but if it gets to 8 with a selection committee I'm happy. It's never going to be fair for ECU, and nothing is ever going to be given to us.

If the non-contract conferences can hang on long enough for the playoffs to expand to 8----I think the non-contract conferences will have a very reasonable shot at having a representive in the mix on a yearly basis. Unfortunately, thats a minimum of 13 years away. Thats way to slow for me---but there isnt alot we can really do.

Yeah it's for sure a decent amount of time away till we get to 8, but it will happen. Of course I would rather it happen overnight, but that's just not in the cards. The 4 team with a selection committee is a start. It will make a lot of money and then coaches and schools will want it to grow and eventually it will. It's never going to get to that talk of every conference champion gets a bid and then at large fills out the rest of the spots, but that's not what I want anyway. I'd be perfectly happy with the top 8 teams in the country make it, no matter what league they play for.

(09-04-2012 06:48 PM)BamaScorpio69 Wrote:  

(09-04-2012 06:25 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  It's never going to be fair for ECU, and nothing is ever going to be given to us.

Not really sure the crying for that statement. It's never going to be fair for USM, ECU, Marshall, or whatever other non-AQ school you want to name. It is what it is. The deck is always going to be stacked against these schools. That's not crying that's just the truth.