(12-08-2014 09:00 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(12-08-2014 07:43 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  The Big12 needs value and performance out of any potential expansion team, not academic puffery.

Cincy and BYU fit that bill more or less, nobody else does.

If academic puffery doesn't matter then why is Cincy so high and mighty? UCF has done more and is in a better recruiting State. ECU has done more and together with UCF would put The Big 12 all along the part of the East Coast that actually matters in College Football. That is something that BYU and Cincy do not help with.

You still mad about the beat down we gave you in the NCAA? You ran those stiffs out there and we smoked you lol.

updated:
SEC- Ala/MSU/Miss 87.5 mil 6.25 per school
ACC- FSU/Ga Tech 83.5 mil 5.96 per school
B12- TCU/Bay 58 mil 5.8 per school
P12- Ore/Ariz 60 mil 5.00 per school
B10- OSU/MSU 60 mil 4.28 per school

really only the Big 10 way far down there..

(12-08-2014 09:56 PM)stever20 Wrote:  updated:
SEC- Ala/MSU/Miss 87.5 mil 6.25 per school
ACC- FSU/Ga Tech 83.5 mil 5.96 per school
B12- TCU/Bay 58 mil 5.8 per school
P12- Ore/Ariz 60 mil 5.00 per school
B10- OSU/MSU 60 mil 4.28 per school

really only the Big 10 way far down there..

If the Orange and Cotton had the playoff instead of Sugar and Rose with everything else the same, it would be:
SEC $100 (40 sugar-27.5 orange), $7.14 per school
ACC $56 (lose 27.5 as GT doesn't make it) $4.00 per school
B12 $98 (40 sugar, + KSU makes it as #11) $9.80 per school
P12 $96 (40 Rose-4 misc) $8.00 per school
B10 $96 (40 Rose-4 misc) $6.85 per school

If it was the Peach and Fiesta:
SEC $123.5 (Orange-4) $8.78 per school
ACC $83.5 (orange-GT in) $5.96 per school
B12 $94 (KSU doesn't make it) $9.40 per school
P12 $96 $8.00 per school
B10 $96 $6.85 per school

(12-08-2014 09:45 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-08-2014 09:01 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(12-08-2014 08:27 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(12-08-2014 07:43 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  The Big12 needs value and performance out of any potential expansion team, not academic puffery.

Cincy and BYU fit that bill more or less, nobody else does.

Word, and besides the 14 Million they lost throw in 30 plus million for a CCG. That is 44 Million. Cincy/Memphis or Byu whatever.

Yes, as the Forbes article notes, OSU will be getting $18m for the Big Ten from the Sugar Bowl, while TCU will be getting $4m and Baylor just shy of $4m for the Big12.

But you have to capitalize that ... its not clear how many years "not having a CCG" will cost the Big12 a spot. A #1/#2 seed would go anyway, after all, and if all five conferences have CCGs, then 20% of the CCG winners will be left out anyway. If not having a CCG costs the Big12 three appearances over the 12 years, that's more like $3.5m/year.

And how conferences distribute that drives how much it means for each school voting ... Kansas, for example, only has reason to vote based on the addition to the per school distribution from that, and it might not add up to very much in the bigger picture.

The guy writing the Forbes article doesn't know what he is talking about. There was an article posted on here a week or so ago with the correct allocation. Its $2-$4 million depending on whether 1 or 2 got into the playoffs. There is no extra $22 million for getting in the championship game.

And there is no guarantee that Baylor/TCU would have gotten in if there was a championship game. I personally think Ohio $tate would have gotten the nod anyway.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

(12-08-2014 09:53 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(12-08-2014 09:00 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(12-08-2014 07:43 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  The Big12 needs value and performance out of any potential expansion team, not academic puffery.

Cincy and BYU fit that bill more or less, nobody else does.

If academic puffery doesn't matter then why is Cincy so high and mighty? UCF has done more and is in a better recruiting State. ECU has done more and together with UCF would put The Big 12 all along the part of the East Coast that actually matters in College Football. That is something that BYU and Cincy do not help with.

You still mad about the beat down we gave you in the NCAA? You ran those stiffs out there and we smoked you lol.

I don't even know what you are talking about. That was an absolutely idiotic response.

Ok, I am confused.

Everybody seems to agree that the Access non-playoff bowls pay $4M per team.

So why does Forbes think that the playoffs semifinals pay $18M while others are insisting its only $6M. Where did those numbers come from? Seems like it should be more than $6M.

Also why is the Big 12 getting a $50M base, the same as the other P5 conferences, when it only has 10 teams? That does not seem right.

I'm confused as well. The Big 12 lost out on $14mil by TCU/Baylor getting snubbed. Adding schools without the guarantee of our $$$$ going up means each teams loses a significant portion of our TV revenue.

Help me understand something---- how is the Big 12 better off adding schools that take away $$$ from our current members? CCG won't make up that difference and our SOS will be hurt by weak schedules.

(12-08-2014 10:29 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(12-08-2014 09:53 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(12-08-2014 09:00 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(12-08-2014 07:43 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  The Big12 needs value and performance out of any potential expansion team, not academic puffery.

Cincy and BYU fit that bill more or less, nobody else does.

If academic puffery doesn't matter then why is Cincy so high and mighty? UCF has done more and is in a better recruiting State. ECU has done more and together with UCF would put The Big 12 all along the part of the East Coast that actually matters in College Football. That is something that BYU and Cincy do not help with.

You still mad about the beat down we gave you in the NCAA? You ran those stiffs out there and we smoked you lol.

I don't even know what you are talking about. That was an absolutely idiotic response.

Why would you reply to an idiotic response? Iowa really freaking Iowa? WTF you have your program ever done?

(12-08-2014 10:41 PM)goofus Wrote:  Ok, I am confused.

Everybody seems to agree that the Access non-playoff bowls pay $4M per team.

So why does Forbes think that the playoffs semifinals pay $18M while others are insisting its only $6M. Where did those numbers come from? Seems like it should be more than $6M.

Also why is the Big 12 getting a $50M base, the same as the other P5 conferences, when it only has 10 teams? That does not seem right.

Its just like before, the bulk is shared equally by each BCS/contract conference, whether you had 8 like the BE, 10 like the Pac 10, 11 like the Big 10 or 12 like the SEC and Big 12-and now whether you have 10, 12 or 14.

(12-08-2014 10:51 PM)RaiderRed Wrote:  I'm confused as well. The Big 12 lost out on $14mil by TCU/Baylor getting snubbed. Adding schools without the guarantee of our $$$$ going up means each teams loses a significant portion of our TV revenue.

Help me understand something---- how is the Big 12 better off adding schools that take away $$$ from our current members? CCG won't make up that difference and our SOS will be hurt by weak schedules.

People said that TCU would hurt the schedule.

People also said Utah would hurt the Pac-12 schedule.

Let's be honest, you instantly give a G5 school 14+ million more a year in about three years they will be on the same level most P5 teams are on.

(12-08-2014 10:51 PM)RaiderRed Wrote:  I'm confused as well. The Big 12 lost out on $14mil by TCU/Baylor getting snubbed. Adding schools without the guarantee of our $$$$ going up means each teams loses a significant portion of our TV revenue.

Help me understand something---- how is the Big 12 better off adding schools that take away $$$ from our current members? CCG won't make up that difference and our SOS will be hurt by weak schedules.

The Big 12 did not lose out on $14 million. The Forbes writer doesn't know what he is talking about. Look at the business of college sports link I provided. They actually identify the source of their info-the official playoff website (and there have been a number of articles over the past year and a half with similar numbers).

(12-08-2014 10:54 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(12-08-2014 10:29 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(12-08-2014 09:53 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(12-08-2014 09:00 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(12-08-2014 07:43 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  The Big12 needs value and performance out of any potential expansion team, not academic puffery.

Cincy and BYU fit that bill more or less, nobody else does.

If academic puffery doesn't matter then why is Cincy so high and mighty? UCF has done more and is in a better recruiting State. ECU has done more and together with UCF would put The Big 12 all along the part of the East Coast that actually matters in College Football. That is something that BYU and Cincy do not help with.

You still mad about the beat down we gave you in the NCAA? You ran those stiffs out there and we smoked you lol.

I don't even know what you are talking about. That was an absolutely idiotic response.

Why would you reply to an idiotic response? Iowa really freaking Iowa? WTF you have your program ever done?

They recently beat North Carolina during the Big Ten vs ACC challenge.

Seriously, this isn't even about what happens on the hard court or the playing field. I realize that has completely gone over your head and you have resorted, with your simplistic mind, to tribalistic taunting because of your overly sensitive and defensive reaction to my words but seriously...grow up.

Iowa is part of the Big Ten and you hate that because you know that alone makes them relevant.

(12-08-2014 11:14 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(12-08-2014 10:51 PM)RaiderRed Wrote:  I'm confused as well. The Big 12 lost out on $14mil by TCU/Baylor getting snubbed. Adding schools without the guarantee of our $$$$ going up means each teams loses a significant portion of our TV revenue.

Help me understand something---- how is the Big 12 better off adding schools that take away $$$ from our current members? CCG won't make up that difference and our SOS will be hurt by weak schedules.

People said that TCU would hurt the schedule.

People also said Utah would hurt the Pac-12 schedule.

Let's be honest, you instantly give a G5 school 14+ million more a year in about three years they will be on the same level most P5 teams are on.

Utah and Colorado helped the PAC get their Conference championship game. Utah and Colorado are also Flagship schools for their respective States.

I know a lot of folks slam Colorado and Utah but those people obviously put too much weight on the wrong things if they are thinking that Utah and Colorado aren't a better combo for realignment in regards to the PAC than BYU/Memphis and UC are for the Big 12.