(03-29-2013 03:32 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(03-29-2013 03:22 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(03-29-2013 03:13 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(03-29-2013 03:04 PM)stever20 Wrote:  This guy is full of it. 60 million divided equally would mean 60/5=12 million per conference. For something like the CUSA or MAC- they're not going to get extra money for having 13 or 14 schools. They're going to get 12 million.

Also, I find it incredible that there would be no money for the team that goes to the BCS. That just doesn't pass the smell test at all.

The $82 million for the G5 is split three ways here:

$60M = $1M to each G5 school
$12M to be divided equally among the 5 conferences = $2.4M/conference
$10M to be split among the top four conferences, based on performance ($4M to the top conference, $3M to the 2nd, $2M to the 3rd, and $1M to the 4th)

There will be an additional bonus for a team that makes the BCS, but that money comes out of the "expenses" according to McMurphy. That is separate from the G5 money.

The overall pot for the playoff (not including the contract bowls) is $470M. About $125M comes off the top for the "expenses" (as McMurphy put it which include the $37.5M for the APR component, a stipend to help travel expenses and the appearance bonuses for those who make playoff or access bowls). That leaves about $345M which will be split 75% to the power 5 (about $259M to be divided equally) and 25% to the G5 (to be divided as above).

Ah...so the Access Bowl money is separate so the conference represented gets the bowl money on top the of playoff $$.

Yes, but don't get too excited. The appearance pool is only about $80M and has to go to the four teams in the playoffs, plus the two access spots. It may be as much as $10M for the access spot. What still isn't exactly clear is what happens to the contract bowl money when the contract bowls host the playoffs. I'm guessing the contract conferences keep their share as their "appearance bonus" but we will find out in year one of this as the Rose and Sugar will host the first pair of semifinals.

Do you have a link as everything else I read says the $60 million is split evenly between the G5 conferences and not by school. It is $12 million per conference the first year and not $1 million per school due to most sources I read. (although if you stay at 12 that number is the same)

(03-29-2013 03:39 PM)billings Wrote:  

(03-29-2013 03:32 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(03-29-2013 03:22 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(03-29-2013 03:13 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(03-29-2013 03:04 PM)stever20 Wrote:  This guy is full of it. 60 million divided equally would mean 60/5=12 million per conference. For something like the CUSA or MAC- they're not going to get extra money for having 13 or 14 schools. They're going to get 12 million.

Also, I find it incredible that there would be no money for the team that goes to the BCS. That just doesn't pass the smell test at all.

The $82 million for the G5 is split three ways here:

$60M = $1M to each G5 school
$12M to be divided equally among the 5 conferences = $2.4M/conference
$10M to be split among the top four conferences, based on performance ($4M to the top conference, $3M to the 2nd, $2M to the 3rd, and $1M to the 4th)

There will be an additional bonus for a team that makes the BCS, but that money comes out of the "expenses" according to McMurphy. That is separate from the G5 money.

The overall pot for the playoff (not including the contract bowls) is $470M. About $125M comes off the top for the "expenses" (as McMurphy put it which include the $37.5M for the APR component, a stipend to help travel expenses and the appearance bonuses for those who make playoff or access bowls). That leaves about $345M which will be split 75% to the power 5 (about $259M to be divided equally) and 25% to the G5 (to be divided as above).

Ah...so the Access Bowl money is separate so the conference represented gets the bowl money on top the of playoff $$.

Yes, but don't get too excited. The appearance pool is only about $80M and has to go to the four teams in the playoffs, plus the two access spots. It may be as much as $10M for the access spot. What still isn't exactly clear is what happens to the contract bowl money when the contract bowls host the playoffs. I'm guessing the contract conferences keep their share as their "appearance bonus" but we will find out in year one of this as the Rose and Sugar will host the first pair of semifinals.

Do you have a link as everything else I read says the $60 million is split evenly between the G5 conferences and not by school. It is $12 million per conference the first year and not $1 million per school due to most sources I read. (although if you stay at 12 that number is the same)

The link is in the OP - that's where the quoted text from the Idaho AD came from. The link that explains the rest of what I posted is here: http://espn.go.com/college-football/stor...ources-say

(03-29-2013 03:39 PM)billings Wrote:  

(03-29-2013 03:32 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(03-29-2013 03:22 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(03-29-2013 03:13 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(03-29-2013 03:04 PM)stever20 Wrote:  This guy is full of it. 60 million divided equally would mean 60/5=12 million per conference. For something like the CUSA or MAC- they're not going to get extra money for having 13 or 14 schools. They're going to get 12 million.

Also, I find it incredible that there would be no money for the team that goes to the BCS. That just doesn't pass the smell test at all.

The $82 million for the G5 is split three ways here:

$60M = $1M to each G5 school
$12M to be divided equally among the 5 conferences = $2.4M/conference
$10M to be split among the top four conferences, based on performance ($4M to the top conference, $3M to the 2nd, $2M to the 3rd, and $1M to the 4th)

There will be an additional bonus for a team that makes the BCS, but that money comes out of the "expenses" according to McMurphy. That is separate from the G5 money.

The overall pot for the playoff (not including the contract bowls) is $470M. About $125M comes off the top for the "expenses" (as McMurphy put it which include the $37.5M for the APR component, a stipend to help travel expenses and the appearance bonuses for those who make playoff or access bowls). That leaves about $345M which will be split 75% to the power 5 (about $259M to be divided equally) and 25% to the G5 (to be divided as above).

Ah...so the Access Bowl money is separate so the conference represented gets the bowl money on top the of playoff $$.

Yes, but don't get too excited. The appearance pool is only about $80M and has to go to the four teams in the playoffs, plus the two access spots. It may be as much as $10M for the access spot. What still isn't exactly clear is what happens to the contract bowl money when the contract bowls host the playoffs. I'm guessing the contract conferences keep their share as their "appearance bonus" but we will find out in year one of this as the Rose and Sugar will host the first pair of semifinals.

Do you have a link as everything else I read says the $60 million is split evenly between the G5 conferences and not by school. It is $12 million per conference the first year and not $1 million per school due to most sources I read. (although if you stay at 12 that number is the same)

I wonder if it was from his reference point mentioning that $1 million per school since Rob Spear was referencing the Sun Belt conference of which they would be part of.

(03-29-2013 03:48 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(03-29-2013 03:39 PM)billings Wrote:  

(03-29-2013 03:32 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(03-29-2013 03:22 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(03-29-2013 03:13 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  The $82 million for the G5 is split three ways here:

$60M = $1M to each G5 school
$12M to be divided equally among the 5 conferences = $2.4M/conference
$10M to be split among the top four conferences, based on performance ($4M to the top conference, $3M to the 2nd, $2M to the 3rd, and $1M to the 4th)

There will be an additional bonus for a team that makes the BCS, but that money comes out of the "expenses" according to McMurphy. That is separate from the G5 money.

The overall pot for the playoff (not including the contract bowls) is $470M. About $125M comes off the top for the "expenses" (as McMurphy put it which include the $37.5M for the APR component, a stipend to help travel expenses and the appearance bonuses for those who make playoff or access bowls). That leaves about $345M which will be split 75% to the power 5 (about $259M to be divided equally) and 25% to the G5 (to be divided as above).

Ah...so the Access Bowl money is separate so the conference represented gets the bowl money on top the of playoff $$.

Yes, but don't get too excited. The appearance pool is only about $80M and has to go to the four teams in the playoffs, plus the two access spots. It may be as much as $10M for the access spot. What still isn't exactly clear is what happens to the contract bowl money when the contract bowls host the playoffs. I'm guessing the contract conferences keep their share as their "appearance bonus" but we will find out in year one of this as the Rose and Sugar will host the first pair of semifinals.

Do you have a link as everything else I read says the $60 million is split evenly between the G5 conferences and not by school. It is $12 million per conference the first year and not $1 million per school due to most sources I read. (although if you stay at 12 that number is the same)

I wonder if it was from his reference point mentioning that $1 million per school since Rob Spear was referencing the Sun Belt conference of which they would be part of.

I think it is by Conference not by team for the $60 million. He gets $1 million as there are going to be 12 teams in the sun belt but who knows. If he is correct a new FBS conference could form with 10 teams and instantly have $10 million in revenue right off the top. Also shows that you don't want much dead weight in your league if you want that bonus.

Idaho AD says the remaining 22 million of the original 82 million is split by performance. So MWC or A12 woud get a base of $12 million and then either a 6.4 million or a 5.4 million dollar bonus depending on who finishes as the top ranked league. I am not sure where bob is getting that 12 million and 10 million dollar split stuff

Money for the access bowl will be in addition to this. Only 1 million between the top two conferences in not much money

(03-29-2013 03:48 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  I wonder if it was from his reference point mentioning that $1 million per school since Rob Spear was referencing the Sun Belt conference of which they would be part of.

The text from link in the OP is pretty clear that this is not the case:

Quote:Equally means that each conference will receive $1 million for each of the football schools in its conference.

(03-29-2013 04:00 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(03-29-2013 03:48 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  I wonder if it was from his reference point mentioning that $1 million per school since Rob Spear was referencing the Sun Belt conference of which they would be part of.

The text from link in the OP is pretty clear that this is not the case:

Quote:Equally means that each conference will receive $1 million for each of the football schools in its conference.

but it does not say that the remaining 22 million is broke out other than one lump sum for performance.

I don't see the 10 and 12 million dollar breakout of the remaining 22 million that you mention, although the math works out the same in the end so probably a moot point

(03-29-2013 04:00 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(03-29-2013 03:48 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  I wonder if it was from his reference point mentioning that $1 million per school since Rob Spear was referencing the Sun Belt conference of which they would be part of.

The text from link in the OP is pretty clear that this is not the case:

Quote:Equally means that each conference will receive $1 million for each of the football schools in its conference.

Yep, that's was I thought I interpeted the first time but then second guess due to what's the incentive for a conference not to expand.

I would then venture to say that the performance bonus and the Access Bowl money to the conference would be the disincentive to not expand any further than necessary as that money would be diluted further is having a bloated membership conference.

(03-29-2013 04:06 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(03-29-2013 04:00 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(03-29-2013 03:48 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  I wonder if it was from his reference point mentioning that $1 million per school since Rob Spear was referencing the Sun Belt conference of which they would be part of.

The text from link in the OP is pretty clear that this is not the case:

Quote:Equally means that each conference will receive $1 million for each of the football schools in its conference.

Yep, that's was I thought I interpeted the first time but then second guess due to what's the incentive for a conference not to expand.

I would then venture to say that the performance bonus and the Access Bowl money to the conference would be the disincentive to not expand any further than necessary as that money would be diluted further is having a bloated membership conference.

plus FCS move-up won't be immediately competitive and will hurt your bonus while they come u to speed. TV money is still diluted with expansion though as well

(03-29-2013 03:45 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(03-29-2013 03:39 PM)billings Wrote:  

(03-29-2013 03:32 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(03-29-2013 03:22 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(03-29-2013 03:13 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  The $82 million for the G5 is split three ways here:

$60M = $1M to each G5 school
$12M to be divided equally among the 5 conferences = $2.4M/conference
$10M to be split among the top four conferences, based on performance ($4M to the top conference, $3M to the 2nd, $2M to the 3rd, and $1M to the 4th)

There will be an additional bonus for a team that makes the BCS, but that money comes out of the "expenses" according to McMurphy. That is separate from the G5 money.

The overall pot for the playoff (not including the contract bowls) is $470M. About $125M comes off the top for the "expenses" (as McMurphy put it which include the $37.5M for the APR component, a stipend to help travel expenses and the appearance bonuses for those who make playoff or access bowls). That leaves about $345M which will be split 75% to the power 5 (about $259M to be divided equally) and 25% to the G5 (to be divided as above).

Ah...so the Access Bowl money is separate so the conference represented gets the bowl money on top the of playoff $$.

Yes, but don't get too excited. The appearance pool is only about $80M and has to go to the four teams in the playoffs, plus the two access spots. It may be as much as $10M for the access spot. What still isn't exactly clear is what happens to the contract bowl money when the contract bowls host the playoffs. I'm guessing the contract conferences keep their share as their "appearance bonus" but we will find out in year one of this as the Rose and Sugar will host the first pair of semifinals.

Do you have a link as everything else I read says the $60 million is split evenly between the G5 conferences and not by school. It is $12 million per conference the first year and not $1 million per school due to most sources I read. (although if you stay at 12 that number is the same)

The link is in the OP - that's where the quoted text from the Idaho AD came from. The link that explains the rest of what I posted is here: http://espn.go.com/college-football/stor...ources-say

Yes, but his two sentences are contradictory. First he says the $60 million is split equally among the conferences, then he mentions the $1 million per school. I think in his 2nd sentence he is referring to the Sun Belt which has 12, so it would be $1 million per school. My interpretation is also the common sense interpretation. It is consistent with what they have done in the past (dividing by conference, not school) and would be illogical to allow the Sun Belt to expand and take money from one of the other conferences. Their share shouldn't be impacted by other conference's expansion.

If its a flat $12 million per conference on the $60 million portion, it would be better to start dropping to 8 or 9 schools per league.

(03-29-2013 08:03 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-29-2013 03:45 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(03-29-2013 03:39 PM)billings Wrote:  

(03-29-2013 03:32 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(03-29-2013 03:22 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  Ah...so the Access Bowl money is separate so the conference represented gets the bowl money on top the of playoff $$.

Yes, but don't get too excited. The appearance pool is only about $80M and has to go to the four teams in the playoffs, plus the two access spots. It may be as much as $10M for the access spot. What still isn't exactly clear is what happens to the contract bowl money when the contract bowls host the playoffs. I'm guessing the contract conferences keep their share as their "appearance bonus" but we will find out in year one of this as the Rose and Sugar will host the first pair of semifinals.

Do you have a link as everything else I read says the $60 million is split evenly between the G5 conferences and not by school. It is $12 million per conference the first year and not $1 million per school due to most sources I read. (although if you stay at 12 that number is the same)

The link is in the OP - that's where the quoted text from the Idaho AD came from. The link that explains the rest of what I posted is here: http://espn.go.com/college-football/stor...ources-say

Yes, but his two sentences are contradictory. First he says the $60 million is split equally among the conferences, then he mentions the $1 million per school. I think in his 2nd sentence he is referring to the Sun Belt which has 12, so it would be $1 million per school. My interpretation is also the common sense interpretation. It is consistent with what they have done in the past (dividing by conference, not school) and would be illogical to allow the Sun Belt to expand and take money from one of the other conferences. Their share shouldn't be impacted by other conference's expansion.

But then the text from the link in the OP goes on to include math "(12 schools x $1M = $12M)"

Why include that if its a flat $12M?

(03-29-2013 08:25 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(03-29-2013 08:03 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-29-2013 03:45 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(03-29-2013 03:39 PM)billings Wrote:  

(03-29-2013 03:32 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  Yes, but don't get too excited. The appearance pool is only about $80M and has to go to the four teams in the playoffs, plus the two access spots. It may be as much as $10M for the access spot. What still isn't exactly clear is what happens to the contract bowl money when the contract bowls host the playoffs. I'm guessing the contract conferences keep their share as their "appearance bonus" but we will find out in year one of this as the Rose and Sugar will host the first pair of semifinals.

Do you have a link as everything else I read says the $60 million is split evenly between the G5 conferences and not by school. It is $12 million per conference the first year and not $1 million per school due to most sources I read. (although if you stay at 12 that number is the same)

The link is in the OP - that's where the quoted text from the Idaho AD came from. The link that explains the rest of what I posted is here: http://espn.go.com/college-football/stor...ources-say

Yes, but his two sentences are contradictory. First he says the $60 million is split equally among the conferences, then he mentions the $1 million per school. I think in his 2nd sentence he is referring to the Sun Belt which has 12, so it would be $1 million per school. My interpretation is also the common sense interpretation. It is consistent with what they have done in the past (dividing by conference, not school) and would be illogical to allow the Sun Belt to expand and take money from one of the other conferences. Their share shouldn't be impacted by other conference's expansion.

But then the text from the link in the OP goes on to include math "(12 schools x $1M = $12M)"

Why include that if its a flat $12M?

Because Idaho is going to the 12 team Sun Belt.

(03-29-2013 09:07 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-29-2013 08:25 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(03-29-2013 08:03 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-29-2013 03:45 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(03-29-2013 03:39 PM)billings Wrote:  Do you have a link as everything else I read says the $60 million is split evenly between the G5 conferences and not by school. It is $12 million per conference the first year and not $1 million per school due to most sources I read. (although if you stay at 12 that number is the same)

The link is in the OP - that's where the quoted text from the Idaho AD came from. The link that explains the rest of what I posted is here: http://espn.go.com/college-football/stor...ources-say

Yes, but his two sentences are contradictory. First he says the $60 million is split equally among the conferences, then he mentions the $1 million per school. I think in his 2nd sentence he is referring to the Sun Belt which has 12, so it would be $1 million per school. My interpretation is also the common sense interpretation. It is consistent with what they have done in the past (dividing by conference, not school) and would be illogical to allow the Sun Belt to expand and take money from one of the other conferences. Their share shouldn't be impacted by other conference's expansion.

But then the text from the link in the OP goes on to include math "(12 schools x $1M = $12M)"

Why include that if its a flat $12M?

Because Idaho is going to the 12 team Sun Belt.

by conference just makes more sense since the top 5 payouts are also by conference it seems. why is nothing ever clear anymore with college athletics lol

Pretty sure the Aresco League and the MWC were outvoted on this deal, which does not reward excellence very highly.

As CommuterBob wrote, only $10M (out of $82M) is up for grabs based on performance:

$4M to the best league
$3M to the 2nd best
$2M to the 3rd best
$1M to the 4th best
0 to the worst

The conference of the team participating in the "BCS" bowl will earn an additional $4M.

That's a huge difference than the old way where half the money was distributed based on performance:

Best league gets 5/15
. . .
Worst gest 1/15

I think the Aresco League and MWC would rather have seen $500K guaranteed to each school, leaving $50M+ up for grabs based on performance.

According to this article which is similar to what McMurphy wrote, the Group of 5 gets 27% of the net revenue after operating expenses, payouts to participating teams and academic performance bonuses. That expense number is estimated at $125M to $150M a year.

Of course, in the $470M pie they say the Group of 5 gets 27% from, they conveniently leave out $40M per Big 10 and Pac 12 participant in the Rose and Big 12 and SEC participant in the Sugar, and $27M to the ACC participant in the Orange. The "contract bowl" payments of $187M are NOT included in the $470M a year number. Once those numbers are accounted for, the Group of Five's share is effectively reduced to 18% or so.

$470M total pie - $125M in expenses, etc. = $345M net * 27% = $93M. This is close to the numbers posted on the Idaho forum. $470M is the 12-year average. I'm sure its much bigger at the end than in the beginning.

(03-29-2013 03:32 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(03-29-2013 03:22 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  Ah...so the Access Bowl money is separate so the conference represented gets the bowl money on top the of playoff $$.

Yes, but don't get too excited. The appearance pool is only about $80M and has to go to the four teams in the playoffs, plus the two access spots. It may be as much as $10M for the access spot. What still isn't exactly clear is what happens to the contract bowl money when the contract bowls host the playoffs. I'm guessing the contract conferences keep their share as their "appearance bonus" but we will find out in year one of this as the Rose and Sugar will host the first pair of semifinals.

The USA Today article I cited above said $6M per semifinal team ($24M), and $4M per "Host" bowl participant ($16M-$24M).

(03-30-2013 12:57 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  Pretty sure the Aresco League and the MWC were outvoted on this deal, which does not reward excellence very highly.

Actually, I'm not sure how hard the the MWC would have fought for merit-based pay, since because of the Boise State deal half of anything merit based goes back to the schools that earned it.

Quote:As CommuterBob wrote, only $10M (out of $82M) is up for grabs based on performance:.......The conference of the team participating in the "BCS" bowl will earn an additional $4M.

Since Boise State would be getting $2M of that $4M, and a slice of the "best conference" or "second-best conference" money for being ranked, most of the MWC didn't have much incentive to push for expanding those two pots of money.

Quote:I think the Aresco League and MWC would rather have seen $500K guaranteed to each school, leaving $50M+ up for grabs based on performance.

I think Wyoming, UNLV, New Mexico, Colorado State, Utah State, San Jose STate are just fine with it. And I don't think HAwaii, SDSU, etc are that bothered.

(03-29-2013 02:53 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(03-29-2013 02:46 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

Quote:Of the approximately $82 million that will be distributed and divided among the five non-AQ conferences, $60 million will be allocated to the non-AQ conferences equally. Equally means that each conference will receive $1 million for each of the football schools in its conference.

So the Sun Belt gets $1 million/year each for NMSU, Idaho, and any other football team they invite to their party.

That might mean that adding more schools for these leagues is low-risk: Every school they add contributes $1 million/year to the conference kitty, and the conference can subtract out however much they want to retain for expenses before distributing the rest. If the conference takes out 20-30 percent of that money for "overhead", then every new team in a "non contract" conference contributes a couple hundred thousand a year to the conference's budget for conference operations just by being there.

That gives "non contract" conference commissioners a self-perpetuating reason to push for more expansion, whether or not that expansion advances the interests of the existing members of the conference.

Well then members need to pay attention and not rubber stamp additions, I.e. Tulane

Go back to your hole. TULANE will be important. St. John's though will still be well not much. The C-7 will see how much less they matter real soon.

(03-30-2013 03:03 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(03-29-2013 03:32 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(03-29-2013 03:22 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  Ah...so the Access Bowl money is separate so the conference represented gets the bowl money on top the of playoff $$.

Yes, but don't get too excited. The appearance pool is only about $80M and has to go to the four teams in the playoffs, plus the two access spots. It may be as much as $10M for the access spot. What still isn't exactly clear is what happens to the contract bowl money when the contract bowls host the playoffs. I'm guessing the contract conferences keep their share as their "appearance bonus" but we will find out in year one of this as the Rose and Sugar will host the first pair of semifinals.

The USA Today article I cited above said $6M per semifinal team ($24M), and $4M per "Host" bowl participant ($16M-$24M).

Interesting that two articles on the subject posted 1 day apart could have a disparity in numbers.

(03-30-2013 07:15 AM)pablowow Wrote:  

(03-29-2013 02:53 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(03-29-2013 02:46 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

Quote:Of the approximately $82 million that will be distributed and divided among the five non-AQ conferences, $60 million will be allocated to the non-AQ conferences equally. Equally means that each conference will receive $1 million for each of the football schools in its conference.

So the Sun Belt gets $1 million/year each for NMSU, Idaho, and any other football team they invite to their party.

That might mean that adding more schools for these leagues is low-risk: Every school they add contributes $1 million/year to the conference kitty, and the conference can subtract out however much they want to retain for expenses before distributing the rest. If the conference takes out 20-30 percent of that money for "overhead", then every new team in a "non contract" conference contributes a couple hundred thousand a year to the conference's budget for conference operations just by being there.

That gives "non contract" conference commissioners a self-perpetuating reason to push for more expansion, whether or not that expansion advances the interests of the existing members of the conference.

Well then members need to pay attention and not rubber stamp additions, I.e. Tulane

Go back to your hole. TULANE will be important.

I agree. Tulane has been very good before and will be again. This is not to mention the class, tradition, academic excellence, sensible location, large market and great travel destination that they add.

(03-30-2013 05:48 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  Since Boise State would be getting $2M of that $4M, and a slice of the "best conference" or "second-best conference" money for being ranked, most of the MWC didn't have much incentive to push for expanding those two pots of money.

Anyone in the MWC can get that $2 million not just Boise

If the g5 votes on how to distribute the money a small performance bonus makes sense as the Sunbelt, MAC, and CUSA wold want a more guaranteed structure with a smaller bonus then the A12 (get a name already) and MWC would want