(04-12-2013 04:07 PM)Freshy Wrote:  

(04-12-2013 03:35 PM)Vobserver Wrote:  

(04-11-2013 09:43 PM)Freshy Wrote:  

(04-11-2013 09:23 PM)WinOrLoseEAGLE Wrote:  

(04-11-2013 09:56 AM)RedDog Wrote:  Top rated conference gets extra money. The more teams added, the more dead weight to conference bringing down rating.

Not true Brahmagupta (look it up). That's a generalization of the worst effort....there are two teams primarily at issue; ULALA and AR-State. BOTH would have fallen inside the top 5 in C-USA the last two years (as I believe it to be....didn't look at the numbers myself but it's at the very minimum a reasonably good statement).

Adding teams that increase the average ratings of the conference could ONLY potentially serve to increase the total conference payout. Adding teams that decrease the average ratings could only potentially decrease the total conference payout. THAT is the factual statement. My hypothesis would be that both AR-State and ULALA would INCREASE the average ratings of the conference.....thus, adding these teams will hypothetically INCREASE the total conference payout, not reduce it. Adding Richmond and JMU - yeah, that serves to lower the ratings and thus potentially lower the conference payout.

This is true, but history suggests that ULL and Arky State would not be good adds in this regard. I have said this before, but the games that matter far more than any other are the ones against power conference opponents. ULL and ASU are 0-8 over the last two years in these games. Southern Miss and Marshall were 2-2 in 2011. Marshall and Rice were 1-3 in 2012. These are hardly the best teams in CUSA over this period (with the exception of 2011 Southern Miss).

At least get your facts straight. USM was 1-2 in that 2 year period, with losses to Nebraska and Louisville, and a win over Virginia. Marshall was 1-4 in the same span, win a win over Louisville and losses to West Virginia [twice], Virginia Tech and Purdue.

ASU had losses to Illinois, Virginia Tech, Oregon and Nebraska. UL had losses to Oklahoma State [twice], Arizona and Florida.

Hardly the huge difference you implied; plus the Sun Belt schools played slightly better AQ teams. They also happened to be 4-0 vs CUSA teams in the last two seasons. [19-3 against CUSA if you count the SBC move-ups]

You should read more and post less.

Southern Miss was 1-0 in 2011 (beat Virginia in Charlottesville).
Marshall was 1-4 in 2011 and 2012 (beat Louisville).
Rice was 1-1 in 2012 (beat Kansas).

I chose these teams because they are the two highest finishers over the last two years who will be in CUSA in the near future. Hence my comment that it was not the best CUSA could come up with outside of the one exception. It would be grossly unfair to compare an 0-12 team to a 9-3 or 10-2 one. As it is, ASU and ULL are still getting the benefit of the doubt because three of the above teams finished in the 5-7 to 7-5 range. They still won more games against the power conferences.

The quality of the power conference team does not matter nearly as much as the fact that it was a power conference team. Whether Oklahoma State was better than Kansas last year is only important to the component fan bases when embroiled in a pissing contest. In other words, it is an either/or proposition: Either you beat the power conference teams on your schedule, or you don't.

Which team is better remembered: The Tulane team that went 13-0 in 1998 against a weak schedule...or the Southern Miss teams that went 18-1 in CUSA from 1997 to 1999, but lost to Florida, Tennessee, Penn State, the Urban Meyer Utes, Texas A&M twice, and Alabama three times? All that conference domination sure did get Southern Miss far.

Records between conferences are the most pointless stat ever invented in college football. I mean, congratulations, you won the pissing contest...your trophy is in the bathroom between the sink and the shower.

Until such time as a true "football RPI" exists, the only games that matter in terms of any kind of "pecking order" or "best team" status among the Go5 are the ones played against power conference teams. And then, all that matters is whether you win or lose.

Your numbers were still wrong.

(04-12-2013 05:00 PM)Vobserver Wrote:  

(04-12-2013 04:07 PM)Freshy Wrote:  

(04-12-2013 03:35 PM)Vobserver Wrote:  

(04-11-2013 09:43 PM)Freshy Wrote:  

(04-11-2013 09:23 PM)WinOrLoseEAGLE Wrote:  Not true Brahmagupta (look it up). That's a generalization of the worst effort....there are two teams primarily at issue; ULALA and AR-State. BOTH would have fallen inside the top 5 in C-USA the last two years (as I believe it to be....didn't look at the numbers myself but it's at the very minimum a reasonably good statement).

Adding teams that increase the average ratings of the conference could ONLY potentially serve to increase the total conference payout. Adding teams that decrease the average ratings could only potentially decrease the total conference payout. THAT is the factual statement. My hypothesis would be that both AR-State and ULALA would INCREASE the average ratings of the conference.....thus, adding these teams will hypothetically INCREASE the total conference payout, not reduce it. Adding Richmond and JMU - yeah, that serves to lower the ratings and thus potentially lower the conference payout.

This is true, but history suggests that ULL and Arky State would not be good adds in this regard. I have said this before, but the games that matter far more than any other are the ones against power conference opponents. ULL and ASU are 0-8 over the last two years in these games. Southern Miss and Marshall were 2-2 in 2011. Marshall and Rice were 1-3 in 2012. These are hardly the best teams in CUSA over this period (with the exception of 2011 Southern Miss).

At least get your facts straight. USM was 1-2 in that 2 year period, with losses to Nebraska and Louisville, and a win over Virginia. Marshall was 1-4 in the same span, win a win over Louisville and losses to West Virginia [twice], Virginia Tech and Purdue.

ASU had losses to Illinois, Virginia Tech, Oregon and Nebraska. UL had losses to Oklahoma State [twice], Arizona and Florida.

Hardly the huge difference you implied; plus the Sun Belt schools played slightly better AQ teams. They also happened to be 4-0 vs CUSA teams in the last two seasons. [19-3 against CUSA if you count the SBC move-ups]

You should read more and post less.

Southern Miss was 1-0 in 2011 (beat Virginia in Charlottesville).
Marshall was 1-4 in 2011 and 2012 (beat Louisville).
Rice was 1-1 in 2012 (beat Kansas).

I chose these teams because they are the two highest finishers over the last two years who will be in CUSA in the near future. Hence my comment that it was not the best CUSA could come up with outside of the one exception. It would be grossly unfair to compare an 0-12 team to a 9-3 or 10-2 one. As it is, ASU and ULL are still getting the benefit of the doubt because three of the above teams finished in the 5-7 to 7-5 range. They still won more games against the power conferences.

The quality of the power conference team does not matter nearly as much as the fact that it was a power conference team. Whether Oklahoma State was better than Kansas last year is only important to the component fan bases when embroiled in a pissing contest. In other words, it is an either/or proposition: Either you beat the power conference teams on your schedule, or you don't.

Which team is better remembered: The Tulane team that went 13-0 in 1998 against a weak schedule...or the Southern Miss teams that went 18-1 in CUSA from 1997 to 1999, but lost to Florida, Tennessee, Penn State, the Urban Meyer Utes, Texas A&M twice, and Alabama three times? All that conference domination sure did get Southern Miss far.

Records between conferences are the most pointless stat ever invented in college football. I mean, congratulations, you won the pissing contest...your trophy is in the bathroom between the sink and the shower.

Until such time as a true "football RPI" exists, the only games that matter in terms of any kind of "pecking order" or "best team" status among the Go5 are the ones played against power conference teams. And then, all that matters is whether you win or lose.

Your numbers were still wrong.

So, it looks like UTSA will pay the entry fee to C-USA each year till we are paid up. We have no exit fee for the WAC. Then we get $1M per year for the fraction of TV revenue (I don't remember the number) for the next 4 years? But then, just because we are FBS in Go5, we get another $857k ($12M/14) a year starting in 2014? Well, I gotta admit I wasn't planning on that extra $857k.

But, that $857k could go down if we add two more, or go up if we have a kick-ass conference, or UTSA makes it to a bowl game?

Please correct me if I'm wrong on the numbers. (Yes, I didn't include expenses because we all know we have them.)

So, it appears like we get more money than I already expected. A little less money if we move to 16. Possibly a little more if going to 16 results in a significant difference in our conference ranking at the end of the season? But definitely less if we stay in the same ballpark (in terms of strength)? I don't see an upside to 16 yet.

Ok, this may be a stupid question; how much stronger (in terms of conference strength) would the conference need to be to justify going to 16 to make the numbers work such that we get a larger amount per school (from Pool B)? Does pulling ArkSt and LA make the differential between Sunbelt and C-USA that much different to justify it? Does it move us up to MWC/AAC status? If it's a 3x improvement we need then it seems rather dumb. If it's 1.5x improvement we would need, then maybe it's possible.

(04-12-2013 08:27 PM)slow-runner Wrote:  So, it looks like UTSA will pay the entry fee to C-USA each year till we are paid up. We have no exit fee for the WAC. Then we get $1M per year for the fraction of TV revenue (I don't remember the number) for the next 4 years? But then, just because we are FBS in Go5, we get another $857k ($12M/14) a year starting in 2014? Well, I gotta admit I wasn't planning on that extra $857k.

But, that $857k could go down if we add two more, or go up if we have a kick-ass conference, or UTSA makes it to a bowl game?

Please correct me if I'm wrong on the numbers. (Yes, I didn't include expenses because we all know we have them.)

So, it appears like we get more money than I already expected. A little less money if we move to 16. Possibly a little more if going to 16 results in a significant difference in our conference ranking at the end of the season? But definitely less if we stay in the same ballpark (in terms of strength)? I don't see an upside to 16 yet.

Ok, this may be a stupid question; how much stronger (in terms of conference strength) would the conference need to be to justify going to 16 to make the numbers work such that we get a larger amount per school (from Pool B)? Does pulling ArkSt and LA make the differential between Sunbelt and C-USA that much different to justify it? Does it move us up to MWC/AAC status? If it's a 3x improvement we need then it seems rather dumb. If it's 1.5x improvement we would need, then maybe it's possible.

It's not a number that can actually be quantified looking forward (nor guaranteed "looking forward").....what it does with regard to SBC v C-USA is it takes the two top - current - SBC teams OUT of the SBC ranking computations thus lowering their rankings. It doesn't necessarily increase C-USA's. However, the rankings will be used to then place the Go5 in a sequential order....1,2,3,4,5 with 1 getting more than 2; 2 getting more than 3; yada yada yada. NOW, if there is action taken that lowers one conference (SBC) basically for the foreseeable future and either allows the other conference (C-USA) to increase or maintain their same average score then C-USA has a guaranteed #4 payout.

Personally, I think we're in the thick of things now and can generally expect a total conference rank of 1, 2 or 3....then again, I imagine all fans of a Go5 conference have that feeling as well.

(04-12-2013 03:04 PM)PaulDel2 Wrote:  

(04-12-2013 03:40 AM)Funslinger Wrote:  

(04-10-2013 11:45 PM)FIUFan Wrote:  

(04-10-2013 11:37 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  Under the new playoff system, each G5 school will receive $1M in base pay with one caveat: no G5 conference will receive more than $12M.
At 14 members, C-USA schools' base pay is already down from $1M to $857K. If C-USA went to 16, the base pay would drop to $750K per school.

One person close to the process said, "The recommendation is to cap it so people won't think, 'Let's keep adding people and we'll keep picking up dollars.'"

Why would anyone think that by adding more members you would get more money? The only way to get more money is to reduce the number of recipients of those dollars (i.e. downsize the number of conferences).

Duh! If a conference isn't capped at $12 million, a conference with 16 teams would get $16 million while one with 14 teams would get $14 million. If I'm not mistaken, $16 million and $14 million are more than $12 million.

The best way to do it is to measure how much the total amount distributed by the Conference Office is to each school from the total revenue, and how much the addition of each team would lessen the payments. My recollection from figures that I saw somewhere during all of the conference realignment posts was that the conference distributes between $24 and $30 to the 12 teams each year (based on a post that said that Southern Miss gets between $2 and $2.5 million). That means that an additional $12 would be between $36 and $42 million to divide. Rough math says that divided 14 ways it is $2.6 to $3 million per team (assuming that post season play doesn't skew the numbers in favor of a participant) while 16 ways would b between $2.25 and $2.6 million. The loss per team by adding 2 more is roughly $375,000 to $400,000 to each team to add 2 more.

Funslinger, as I understand it from what has been written at various network/news organizations sports sites is that it is capped at $12 million per conference regardless of the number of teams over 12 in the conference.

That's only relevant if you're talking per team revenue. We're talking per conference revenue based on the quote from the article.

"The recommendation is to cap it so people won't think, 'Let's keep adding people and we'll keep picking up dollars.'"