Apparently they are going to split the WAC $$$$ with the other Non AQ leagues. McMurphy article this morning on this issue:

With the new playoff format beginning in 2014 and estimates that the revenue could be worth twice as much, if the revenue sharing percentages remain the same in 2014 (and there's no guarantee it will), then C-USA, MAC, Sun Belt and MWC would each earn $6.6 million.

While that is a significant increase, it still pales in comparison to the minimum amount the other conferences (SEC, Pac 12, Big Ten, Big 12, ACC and Big East) each earned in 2011-12 ($22.3 million) and would be projected to make in 2014 (at least $44 million).

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...y/18920451

In the end it not about the games, bowls but about the C.R.E.A.M...it is what it is.

That right their should end the talk of Boise and SDSU going back to the MWC

(05-01-2012 10:00 AM)solohawks Wrote:  That right their should end the talk of Boise and SDSU going back to the MWC

Assuming the BE is treated the same monetarily as the other 5 then of course they aren't coming back. I never subscribed to the theory they ever would anyway. It's just as stupid as the BE fans theory that anything is bringing former BE members back. No one is coming back to anyone.

Yeah Boise and SDSU going back right now would be a dumb move. Boise will find a place for its other sports even if it means taking them to The Big East. They will just have to schedule all of their OOC games close to home.
Football is all that matters in the long run. Basketball can be successful in any conference as long as you can make the Tournament.
And Boise just won the MWC championships in Tennis and Gymnastics and no one even noticed, not even me.
Time to stop pretending anything other than football and basketball (somewhat) matters.

(05-01-2012 10:00 AM)solohawks Wrote:  That right their should end the talk of Boise and SDSU going back to the MWC

That talk was dumb to begin with. No chance of them going back.

(05-01-2012 10:38 AM)wvucrazed Wrote:  

(05-01-2012 10:00 AM)solohawks Wrote:  That right their should end the talk of Boise and SDSU going back to the MWC

That talk was dumb to begin with. No chance of them going back.

West Virginia has a better chance of going back to the BIG EAST...lol.

I do want one thing, and that is for WVU to win the Big XII. I know you will be doing it for yourselves but the ones that are still in the BIG EAST will know that you will show that we do/did play some decent football.

That's true. If WV wins Big 12 and then whenever Pitt/Syracuse did well in ACC- Big East will be I don't know if vindicated would be the appropriate word, but given maybe a bit more respect.

going to the story that was out on Friday- that the group of then 5 would be getting 30 million dollars...
if it was 5- 6 mil per each conference
if it was 4- 7.5 mil per each conference

we're talking a difference of at most 150k per school.... 10 team MWC about 750k per school total. CUSA/SBC 12 teams- about 625k per school. 13 team MAC- about 575k per school

Big East- if they get 44 million- would be at about 3.142 mil per school(with 14 teams).

Yeah, Boise and SDSU aren't coming back.

Funny how people can run with what they want to fit their agenda. What about this rather important line...

"if the revenue sharing percentages remain the same in 2014 (and there's no guarantee it will),"

AQ was the justification for the payout to the Big East and ACC. If AQ goes away, and there is a 4 team playoff, those 4 will have to get paid and it wont be guaranteed which conferences get "automatic qualification". I believe this is moving to a per team allocation so a conference with 10 members (thing B12) doesnt get more per team than a conference with 14 members (think SEC).

But go on about Boise and SDSU if you want and just forget that line in the article even existed...

(05-01-2012 10:41 AM)Maize Wrote:  

(05-01-2012 10:38 AM)wvucrazed Wrote:  

(05-01-2012 10:00 AM)solohawks Wrote:  That right their should end the talk of Boise and SDSU going back to the MWC

That talk was dumb to begin with. No chance of them going back.

West Virginia has a better chance of going back to the BIG EAST...lol.

I do want one thing, and that is for WVU to win the Big XII. I know you will be doing it for yourselves but the ones that are still in the BIG EAST will know that you will show that we do/did play some decent football.

Shoot, that makes me kind of want WVU not to win next year.

(05-01-2012 10:51 AM)stever20 Wrote:  going to the story that was out on Friday- that the group of then 5 would be getting 30 million dollars...
if it was 5- 6 mil per each conference
if it was 4- 7.5 mil per each conference

we're talking a difference of at most 150k per school.... 10 team MWC about 750k per school total. CUSA/SBC 12 teams- about 625k per school. 13 team MAC- about 575k per school

Big East- if they get 44 million- would be at about 3.142 mil per school(with 14 teams).

Yeah, Boise and SDSU aren't coming back.

IMO, the nBE isn't going to get anywhere near the 44 million mark the power 5 will. However, I do believe they'll still be way ahead of the Alliance teams and that Boise/SDSU won't be coming back.

(05-01-2012 11:59 AM)HP-TBDPITL Wrote:  Funny how people can run with what they want to fit their agenda. What about this rather important line...

"if the revenue sharing percentages remain the same in 2014 (and there's no guarantee it will),"

AQ was the justification for the payout to the Big East and ACC. If AQ goes away, and there is a 4 team playoff, those 4 will have to get paid and it wont be guaranteed which conferences get "automatic qualification". I believe this is moving to a per team allocation so a conference with 10 members (thing B12) doesnt get more per team than a conference with 14 members (think SEC).

But go on about Boise and SDSU if you want and just forget that line in the article even existed...

Partially yes and partially no. AQ might go away, but contractual tie-ins aren't going away (and this has been stated time and time again). Since the main idea is that the top bowls are going to host semifinals based on tie-ins, I think we should be expecting that a semifinal bid is going to be treated the same as any other BCS bowl bid financially just like a national champion game bid is treated exactly the same as any other BCS bowl bid today.

So, the "justification" for the power conferences to get paid more is that they have a contractual tie-in to a BCS bowl (and with the prospect of bowls such as the Capital One and Cotton Bowls getting elevated, I'd expect that the B1G, SEC and Big 12 can get multiple contractual tie-ins to BCS bowls), so they all get a guaranteed full share of the "12-team event" money for each of those tie-ins, whether any of them get into the semifinal or not (just like those power conferences get a guaranteed full share of the current BCS system money, whether they make it to the national championship game or not).

Unless the Orange Bowl drops the ACC tie-in (and I don't think for a moment that will happen), the ACC is going to be fine. (A conference with Florida State and Miami isn't getting a Miami-based tie-in dropped because Clemson and Virginia Tech keep winning the conference any more than the Rose Bowl would drop the Pac-12 tie-in if Washington State kept winning the conference instead of USC. That's basically what we've been seeing over the past few years in the ACC. The problem for the Orange is who has been winning the ACC lately as opposed to the members of the ACC itself, but that can happen to any conference.) The Big East is the one stuck in the middle because they don't have any contractual tie-ins - that was the only conference where the concept of "AQ status" actually mattered because it was getting an automatic bid that a free market bowl system wouldn't have granted one to.

even if the Big East got 28 mil- that would be 2 mil per school. 267% more than MWC schools got.

(05-01-2012 12:03 PM)EERSFAN Wrote:  

(05-01-2012 10:41 AM)Maize Wrote:  

(05-01-2012 10:38 AM)wvucrazed Wrote:  

(05-01-2012 10:00 AM)solohawks Wrote:  That right their should end the talk of Boise and SDSU going back to the MWC

That talk was dumb to begin with. No chance of them going back.

West Virginia has a better chance of going back to the BIG EAST...lol.

I do want one thing, and that is for WVU to win the Big XII. I know you will be doing it for yourselves but the ones that are still in the BIG EAST will know that you will show that we do/did play some decent football.

Shoot, that makes me kind of want WVU not to win next year.

lol...truth be told "most Louisville" people realize you did what you had to do...I have no hard feeling towards WVU because @ least you was out front about it...Pitt on the other hand......and even with Pitt it is what it is...they did what was best for them...

(05-01-2012 10:08 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  No one is coming back to anyone.

Well except for Temple.

To paraphrase what I've stated before:

Think of the new revenue model as being based on getting a bid to the new "12-team event" (which encompasses the semifinals), with each bid being treated equally for financially purposes and several contractual bids for the power conferences are guaranteed, as opposed to getting a bid to a separate 4-team playoff. This is where I think people are misinterpreting how the revenue model is likely going to go down.

(05-01-2012 12:32 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  To paraphrase what I've stated before:

Think of the new revenue model as being based on getting a bid to the new "12-team event" (which encompasses the semifinals), with each bid being treated equally for financially purposes and several contractual bids for the power conferences are guaranteed, as opposed to getting a bid to a separate 4-team playoff. This is where I think people are misinterpreting how the revenue model is likely going to go down.

Guaranteed yearly revenue stream-(B1G, SEC, ACC etc. etc)...gotta do the budget and no need to risk $$$$Millions$$$$ on some Freshman FG kicker.

(05-01-2012 12:11 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(05-01-2012 11:59 AM)HP-TBDPITL Wrote:  Funny how people can run with what they want to fit their agenda. What about this rather important line...

"if the revenue sharing percentages remain the same in 2014 (and there's no guarantee it will),"

AQ was the justification for the payout to the Big East and ACC. If AQ goes away, and there is a 4 team playoff, those 4 will have to get paid and it wont be guaranteed which conferences get "automatic qualification". I believe this is moving to a per team allocation so a conference with 10 members (thing B12) doesnt get more per team than a conference with 14 members (think SEC).

But go on about Boise and SDSU if you want and just forget that line in the article even existed...

Partially yes and partially no. AQ might go away, but contractual tie-ins aren't going away (and this has been stated time and time again). Since the main idea is that the top bowls are going to host semifinals based on tie-ins, I think we should be expecting that a semifinal bid is going to be treated the same as any other BCS bowl bid financially just like a national champion game bid is treated exactly the same as any other BCS bowl bid today.

So, the "justification" for the power conferences to get paid more is that they have a contractual tie-in to a BCS bowl (and with the prospect of bowls such as the Capital One and Cotton Bowls getting elevated, I'd expect that the B1G, SEC and Big 12 can get multiple contractual tie-ins to BCS bowls), so they all get a guaranteed full share of the "12-team event" money for each of those tie-ins, whether any of them get into the semifinal or not (just like those power conferences get a guaranteed full share of the current BCS system money, whether they make it to the national championship game or not).

Unless the Orange Bowl drops the ACC tie-in (and I don't think for a moment that will happen), the ACC is going to be fine. (A conference with Florida State and Miami isn't getting a Miami-based tie-in dropped because Clemson and Virginia Tech keep winning the conference any more than the Rose Bowl would drop the Pac-12 tie-in if Washington State kept winning the conference instead of USC. That's basically what we've been seeing over the past few years in the ACC. The problem for the Orange is who has been winning the ACC lately as opposed to the members of the ACC itself, but that can happen to any conference.) The Big East is the one stuck in the middle because they don't have any contractual tie-ins - that was the only conference where the concept of "AQ status" actually mattered because it was getting an automatic bid that a free market bowl system wouldn't have granted one to.

If I understand your hypothesis correctly, the nBE as it stands today, would make no more guaranteed money in a playoff than any "current non-AQ" going forward (not including TV) unless they get a contractual bid to one of the major bowls. Am I understanding correctly?

(05-01-2012 12:46 PM)apex_pirate Wrote:  If I understand your hypothesis correctly, the nBE as it stands today, would make no more money in a playoff than any "current non-AQ" going forward (not including TV) unless they get a contractual bid to one of the major bowls. Am I understanding correctly?

Hard to say. My semi-educated guess is that the Big East will end being a "tweener" for revenue purposes - if they don't get a contractual tie-in, they're not going to be guaranteed a full share annually, but they'll likely get something more than the current non-AQ conferences in recognition that it's a "founding conference".

(05-01-2012 11:59 AM)HP-TBDPITL Wrote:  Funny how people can run with what they want to fit their agenda. What about this rather important line...

"if the revenue sharing percentages remain the same in 2014 (and there's no guarantee it will),"

AQ was the justification for the payout to the Big East and ACC. If AQ goes away, and there is a 4 team playoff, those 4 will have to get paid and it wont be guaranteed which conferences get "automatic qualification". I believe this is moving to a per team allocation so a conference with 10 members (thing B12) doesnt get more per team than a conference with 14 members (think SEC).

But go on about Boise and SDSU if you want and just forget that line in the article even existed...

It is what McMurphy said right after that line...it appears he was talking about the current Non AQ's not the current AQ's. He specifically mentioned the C-USA, MWC, MAC & Sunbelt. His placement of the BIG EAST was with the current AQ's. That is why the assumption is made that @ worse as Frank has mentioned the BIG EAST even without a contractural tie-in with one of the upcoming 6 BCS Bowls will still make more then the current Non AQ's.


The actual quote from the article with it being "cut off":

if the revenue sharing percentages remain the same in 2014 (and there's no guarantee it will), then C-USA, MAC, Sun Belt and MWC would each earn $6.6 million.