Clearly the new CFP Playoffs did not benefit the AAC this year from a monetary perspective. But since they were the only BCS automatic qualifier to not to be granted P5 status, this was to be expected. This isn't a knock against the AAC and AAC posters should not take this personally. Just the new reality of the haves and the have-nots.

Would help to have the # of teams in ea conference
Also some leagues didnt have the same teams of the same # of teams, in both years

(05-04-2015 07:58 PM)Cardiff Wrote:  Would help to have the # of teams in ea conference
Also some leagues didnt have the same teams of the same # of teams, in both years

How would it help?

(05-04-2015 08:06 PM)BamaScorpio69 Wrote:  

(05-04-2015 07:58 PM)Cardiff Wrote:  Would help to have the # of teams in ea conference
Also some leagues didnt have the same teams of the same # of teams, in both years

How would it help?

Because three conferences (not one) made less than C-USA did total based on the table shown.

If you are trying to post that only one conference made less than C-USA did per school, saying that in the subject line plus including a table showing the number of schools and per school amounts are needed to validate the point.

(05-04-2015 08:24 PM)FriscoDawg Wrote:  

(05-04-2015 08:06 PM)BamaScorpio69 Wrote:  

(05-04-2015 07:58 PM)Cardiff Wrote:  Would help to have the # of teams in ea conference
Also some leagues didnt have the same teams of the same # of teams, in both years

How would it help?

Because three conferences (not one) made less than C-USA did total based on the table shown.

If you are trying to post that only one conference made less than C-USA did per school, saying that in the subject line plus including a table showing the number of schools and per school amounts are needed to validate the point.

I think he's throwing shade at the AAC for making less money under the new system and being the only conference that holds that distinction.

(05-04-2015 08:27 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  

(05-04-2015 08:24 PM)FriscoDawg Wrote:  

(05-04-2015 08:06 PM)BamaScorpio69 Wrote:  

(05-04-2015 07:58 PM)Cardiff Wrote:  Would help to have the # of teams in ea conference
Also some leagues didnt have the same teams of the same # of teams, in both years

How would it help?

Because three conferences (not one) made less than C-USA did total based on the table shown.

If you are trying to post that only one conference made less than C-USA did per school, saying that in the subject line plus including a table showing the number of schools and per school amounts are needed to validate the point.

I think he's throwing shade at the AAC for making less money under the new system and being the only conference that holds that distinction.

Fair point, but adding "than in the last BCS year" in the subject line would have made it crystal clear.

Plus the AAC getting less money and everyone else getting more was a given before the first kickoff last August.

Not sure why it says Big East as they were the American Athletic Conference both years shown. They just held the Big East's auto bid in 2013-14

(05-04-2015 08:45 PM)CoachMaclid Wrote:  Not sure why it says Big East as they were the American Athletic Conference both years shown. They just held the Big East's auto bid in 2013-14

The table is from the NCAA site, so somebody there is being lazy just using the same conference names from the other revenue distribution charts that cover six years and need both names.

(05-04-2015 08:24 PM)FriscoDawg Wrote:  

(05-04-2015 08:06 PM)BamaScorpio69 Wrote:  

(05-04-2015 07:58 PM)Cardiff Wrote:  Would help to have the # of teams in ea conference
Also some leagues didnt have the same teams of the same # of teams, in both years

How would it help?

Because three conferences (not one) made less than C-USA did total based on the table shown.

If you are trying to post that only one conference made less than C-USA did per school, saying that in the subject line plus including a table showing the number of schools and per school amounts are needed to validate the point.

For crying out loud guys why do you make things so difficult? The table shows one conference made less money in 2013-14 (BCS) than in 2014-15 (CFP).

If I was trying to say anything different I would have stated it that way.

(05-04-2015 08:27 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  

(05-04-2015 08:24 PM)FriscoDawg Wrote:  

(05-04-2015 08:06 PM)BamaScorpio69 Wrote:  

(05-04-2015 07:58 PM)Cardiff Wrote:  Would help to have the # of teams in ea conference
Also some leagues didnt have the same teams of the same # of teams, in both years

How would it help?

Because three conferences (not one) made less than C-USA did total based on the table shown.

If you are trying to post that only one conference made less than C-USA did per school, saying that in the subject line plus including a table showing the number of schools and per school amounts are needed to validate the point.

I think he's throwing shade at the AAC for making less money under the new system and being the only conference that holds that distinction.

I wasn't throwing shade at the AAC. It's understandable why they lost money. The AAC would have lost money even if they had a team in the Access Bowl slot this past season. Losing BCS status clearly hurt them.

I guess it is the off season!

(05-04-2015 07:37 PM)BamaScorpio69 Wrote:  

Ouch.

Folks.....this is what happens when you add a bunch of "dud" programs located in major metropolitan areas that nobody cares about. Seeing those numbers just further increases my belief that CUSA will continue to battle the MWC for the top G5 football conference for many years to come.

I cant help but feel bad for Cincinnati. Such a good solid all around program. To think that just a few years ago they were playing schools like Pitt, Louisville, Rutgers, WVU, Syracuse.......and that has been traded for schools like Tulane, Temple, SMU, Houston etc.

If there ever was the definition of the biggest loser in all these changes, it was Cincinnati. I cant imagine the frustration that Cinci fans must be feeling.

(05-04-2015 09:51 PM)MUHERD76 Wrote:  

(05-04-2015 07:37 PM)BamaScorpio69 Wrote:  

Ouch.

Folks.....this is what happens when you add a bunch of "dud" programs located in major metropolitan areas that nobody cares about. Seeing those numbers just further increases my belief that CUSA will continue to battle the MWC for the top G5 football conference for many years to come.

I cant help but feel bad for Cincinnati. Such a good solid all around program. To think that just a few years ago they were playing schools like Pitt, Louisville, Rutgers, WVU, Syracuse.......and that has been traded for schools like Tulane, Temple, SMU, Houston etc.

If there ever was the definition of the biggest loser in all these changes, it was Cincinnati. I cant imagine the frustration that Cinci fans must be feeling.

Couldn't agree more

You guys traded for even worse

(05-04-2015 10:18 PM)Pony94 Wrote:  You guys traded for even worse

And still received more money than the AAC, go figure

(05-04-2015 09:51 PM)MUHERD76 Wrote:  

(05-04-2015 07:37 PM)BamaScorpio69 Wrote:  

Ouch.

Folks.....this is what happens when you add a bunch of "dud" programs located in major metropolitan areas that nobody cares about.

Couldn't the same basically be said for the F_U's and perhaps the UNTs?

(05-04-2015 10:22 PM)CajunFanatico Wrote:  Couldn't the same basically be said for the F_U's and perhaps the UNTs?

at least we have markets; what do the back-water UL-X's have going for them....crayfish and swamp-buggies?

(05-04-2015 10:18 PM)Pony94 Wrote:  You guys traded for even worse

We did? La Tech is an upgrade over Tulane IMO. No disrespect for Tulsa cause they are a fine program but I wouldn't take them back over Western Kentucky. SMU/North Texas?....its a wash for me. Same with Houston/UTSA. I actually like UTSA better. They have much better fan support. Temple?...there is nobody in CUSA that I would trade for Temple. Once you have the rep of being the worst college football program of all-time, its hard to erase the moniker. There is a reason the original BE kicked that school out.

(05-04-2015 09:14 PM)BamaScorpio69 Wrote:  

(05-04-2015 08:27 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  

(05-04-2015 08:24 PM)FriscoDawg Wrote:  

(05-04-2015 08:06 PM)BamaScorpio69 Wrote:  

(05-04-2015 07:58 PM)Cardiff Wrote:  Would help to have the # of teams in ea conference
Also some leagues didnt have the same teams of the same # of teams, in both years

How would it help?

Because three conferences (not one) made less than C-USA did total based on the table shown.

If you are trying to post that only one conference made less than C-USA did per school, saying that in the subject line plus including a table showing the number of schools and per school amounts are needed to validate the point.

I think he's throwing shade at the AAC for making less money under the new system and being the only conference that holds that distinction.

I wasn't throwing shade at the AAC. It's understandable why they lost money. The AAC would have lost money even if they had a team in the Access Bowl slot this past season. Losing BCS status clearly hurt them.

So what's your point?

Also, why doesn't this table show revenue from our TV deal, or the 100 million retained from the big east deal during that year, or the significant NCAA credits?

(05-04-2015 09:51 PM)MUHERD76 Wrote:  

(05-04-2015 07:37 PM)BamaScorpio69 Wrote:  

Ouch.

Folks.....this is what happens when you add a bunch of "dud" programs located in major metropolitan areas that nobody cares about. Seeing those numbers just further increases my belief that CUSA will continue to battle the MWC for the top G5 football conference for many years to come.

I cant help but feel bad for Cincinnati. Such a good solid all around program. To think that just a few years ago they were playing schools like Pitt, Louisville, Rutgers, WVU, Syracuse.......and that has been traded for schools like Tulane, Temple, SMU, Houston etc.

If there ever was the definition of the biggest loser in all these changes, it was Cincinnati. I cant imagine the frustration that Cinci fans must be feeling.

Lol, keep deluding yourself. Cinci is in a far, far better position than Marshall and everyone knows it.

The year before last, CUSA was battling the sun belt for last place and won. I'd say I'm surprised you have a short memory, but considering your misplaced pride in your "winning" team, and how such a short time ago marshall wasnt even a .500 cusa team with zero championships in any sport, let alone football...