(06-25-2012 06:07 PM)TIGER-PAUL Wrote:  looks like the 'fifth wheel' is going to be in the money though.....

http://espn.go.com/blog/playbook/dollars...hange-much

The schools in the ACC would love to see the Knight Commission reforms.

(06-25-2012 07:28 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(06-25-2012 07:27 PM)EerMeNow Wrote:  

(06-25-2012 06:19 PM)bullet Wrote:  Nothing in that article talks about it being distributed equally among the major conferences. If you do, you have effectively re-created an AQ. That is something the other schools would be very unhappy about.

Not sure I agree with this Bullet. The other schools primary concern surely has to be payout. How often is the MAC, CUSA, etc going to have someone in a position to compete for a national title if its the Tops 4 in the nation? How often are the teams in the conferences going to want larger payouts. In other words, I see them essentially being paid to "go with the flow".

Exactly. SBC clearly in that mode.

The Tulane president said their #1 objective was to get rid of the AQ. If there is a non-earned benefit for being in an AQ conference, it still keeps that label. I think all of those schools want a chance to move up financially and don't want the Big 5 to get a formal label.

(06-25-2012 08:56 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-25-2012 07:28 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(06-25-2012 07:27 PM)EerMeNow Wrote:  

(06-25-2012 06:19 PM)bullet Wrote:  Nothing in that article talks about it being distributed equally among the major conferences. If you do, you have effectively re-created an AQ. That is something the other schools would be very unhappy about.

Not sure I agree with this Bullet. The other schools primary concern surely has to be payout. How often is the MAC, CUSA, etc going to have someone in a position to compete for a national title if its the Tops 4 in the nation? How often are the teams in the conferences going to want larger payouts. In other words, I see them essentially being paid to "go with the flow".

Exactly. SBC clearly in that mode.

The Tulane president said their #1 objective was to get rid of the AQ. If there is a non-earned benefit for being in an AQ conference, it still keeps that label. I think all of those schools want a chance to move up financially and don't want the Big 5 to get a formal label.

Now the Big 10 and Pac 12 MIGHT prefer a non-earned benefit so the other 2 don't have an advantage on them. The ACC definitely would want "tiers." That will be interesting to see.

(06-25-2012 08:45 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(06-25-2012 06:07 PM)TIGER-PAUL Wrote:  looks like the 'fifth wheel' is going to be in the money though.....

http://espn.go.com/blog/playbook/dollars...hange-much

The schools in the ACC would love to see the Knight Commission reforms.

Given how Carolina kids don't even have to go to class I can see how they would like that.
But then GT has a low APR as their guys actually have to take tough classes.

Sorry-but you REALLY asked for that.

(06-25-2012 07:09 PM)stever20 Wrote:  this is how it was:
1. SEC 1,054
2. Big Ten 860
3. Big 12 816
4. ACC 673
5. Pac-12 671

SEC with about 50% more points than the ACC.

So per school that is:
SEC 75.3
Big 10 71.7
Big 12 81.6
ACC 48.1
Pac 12 55.9

Another column about what the ACC is facing:
http://www.dailypress.com/sports/dp-spt-...792.column

The stat that is really telling-
#0 or 1 loss teams by conference last 10 years.
SEC 12
Big Ten 11
Pac 12/Big 12 10
Big East 4
ACC 0

VT in 2005 and 2011 the only teams in the ACC title game that lost that would have been on the list. Both entered #5 into the game.

2005 would be a scenario that would be very interesting
USC 12-0 they're in
Texas 12-0 they're in
Penn St 10-1 they're in

VT would have been 11-1 with win vs FSU
Georgia 10-2 with their win vs #4 LSU
It'd be very interesting with this type of scenario this year to see if VT or Georgia would have gone. In 2005, probably would have been VT. In 2012, probably would have been Georgia.

The only thing that stat shows is that the ACC is a balanced league and it is hard for any team to get through a conference season without any losses.
The great thing about that is that all conference games are usually competitive....makes for an exciting season.

(06-26-2012 11:17 AM)XLance Wrote:  The only thing that stat shows is that the ACC is a balanced league and it is hard for any team to get through a conference season without any losses.
The great thing about that is that all conference games are usually competitive....makes for an exciting season.

That is true- but makes it a conference not to be wreckoned with in the national scope. Now, with the money involved in making the playoff (maybe 25 mil per school)- that's huge.

(06-26-2012 11:34 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(06-26-2012 11:17 AM)XLance Wrote:  The only thing that stat shows is that the ACC is a balanced league and it is hard for any team to get through a conference season without any losses.
The great thing about that is that all conference games are usually competitive....makes for an exciting season.

That is true- but makes it a conference not to be wreckoned with in the national scope. Now, with the money involved in making the playoff (maybe 25 mil per school)- that's huge.

Parity is good for the student athletes and good for the fans directly involved.
Are you suggesting that each league should have designated "good" teams so that they could make a lot of money?

(06-26-2012 11:55 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(06-26-2012 11:34 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(06-26-2012 11:17 AM)XLance Wrote:  The only thing that stat shows is that the ACC is a balanced league and it is hard for any team to get through a conference season without any losses.
The great thing about that is that all conference games are usually competitive....makes for an exciting season.

That is true- but makes it a conference not to be wreckoned with in the national scope. Now, with the money involved in making the playoff (maybe 25 mil per school)- that's huge.

Parity is good for the student athletes and good for the fans directly involved.
Are you suggesting that each league should have designated "good" teams so that they could make a lot of money?

I agree with you on the parity being good. But, the fact is, if you have parity, you're not going to be nationally competitve, as the ACC has showed the last several years. Now, there will be a money component to it.

Talent spread more evenly has been a goal of the NCAA for many years. That's why the scholarship numbers are down, so teams can't stockpile players anymore.
Are you saying that each league should let one team win all of it's games so that they can make more money for their league?
Is that your money component?

(06-26-2012 02:30 PM)XLance Wrote:  Talent spread more evenly has been a goal of the NCAA for many years. That's why the scholarship numbers are down, so teams can't stockpile players anymore.
Are you saying that each league should let one team win all of it's games so that they can make more money for their league?
Is that your money component?

The money component is there will be a reward for making the playoffs. Probably close to 25 mil per playoff team.

I wouldn't say that the SEC let LSU win last year.

Back to the article, my initial thought on goin is he's basically a gas bag similiar to the outgoing trustee president not paying any attention to the facts.
The reason the acc may be a 'fifth wheel' has alot to do with his good ole fsu the last decade.
The answer isn't to lower the playoff bar.
Maybe that roof he got years ago hit him in the head.

(06-26-2012 11:17 AM)XLance Wrote:  The only thing that stat shows is that the ACC is a balanced league and it is hard for any team to get through a conference season without any losses.
The great thing about that is that all conference games are usually competitive....makes for an exciting season.

HUMMM sounds an awful lot like what id hear all the time from people bashing the BIG EAST..... They dont have any great teams just a bunch of mediocre teams that can beat anyone in the conference. Competitive games do make the season more fun no doubt.

[/u][/i]

(06-26-2012 12:10 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(06-26-2012 11:55 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(06-26-2012 11:34 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(06-26-2012 11:17 AM)XLance Wrote:  The only thing that stat shows is that the ACC is a balanced league and it is hard for any team to get through a conference season without any losses.
The great thing about that is that all conference games are usually competitive....makes for an exciting season.

That is true- but makes it a conference not to be wreckoned with in the national scope. Now, with the money involved in making the playoff (maybe 25 mil per school)- that's huge.

Parity is good for the student athletes and good for the fans directly involved.
Are you suggesting that each league should have designated "good" teams so that they could make a lot of money?

I agree with you on the parity being good. But, the fact is, if you have parity, you're not going to be nationally competitve, as the ACC has showed the last several years. Now, there will be a money component to it.

I would say your national perception is really what suffers with alot of parity as to being competitive. The Big East got blasted plenty for all the parity but still did okay in bowls and BCS games.

(06-26-2012 02:39 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(06-26-2012 02:30 PM)XLance Wrote:  Talent spread more evenly has been a goal of the NCAA for many years. That's why the scholarship numbers are down, so teams can't stockpile players anymore.
Are you saying that each league should let one team win all of it's games so that they can make more money for their league?
Is that your money component?

The money component is there will be a reward for making the playoffs. Probably close to 25 mil per playoff team.

I wouldn't say that the SEC let LSU win last year.

It's obvious that there is no parity in the SEC or in the Big 12.
Are you suggesting that on a conference level the status quo will be encouraged just so the league can make more money?
Just what is the money component?
And I'm not so sure about not letting LSU win, didn't you watch the end of game situations against North Carolina and Tennessee in 2010? Thank you Mr. Referee!

(06-27-2012 08:31 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(06-26-2012 02:39 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(06-26-2012 02:30 PM)XLance Wrote:  Talent spread more evenly has been a goal of the NCAA for many years. That's why the scholarship numbers are down, so teams can't stockpile players anymore.
Are you saying that each league should let one team win all of it's games so that they can make more money for their league?
Is that your money component?

The money component is there will be a reward for making the playoffs. Probably close to 25 mil per playoff team.

I wouldn't say that the SEC let LSU win last year.

It's obvious that there is no parity in the SEC or in the Big 12.
Are you suggesting that on a conference level the status quo will be encouraged just so the league can make more money?
Just what is the money component?
And I'm not so sure about not letting LSU win, didn't you watch the end of game situations against North Carolina and Tennessee in 2010? Thank you Mr. Referee!

lol- that UNC/Tennessee end of game in 2010 was something else. It was officiated to the rule(which has been changed since).

SEC and Big 12 have had more champs than you might think in the last several years. The difference is the champs they have actually are able to run the table.

(06-27-2012 08:31 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(06-26-2012 02:39 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(06-26-2012 02:30 PM)XLance Wrote:  Talent spread more evenly has been a goal of the NCAA for many years. That's why the scholarship numbers are down, so teams can't stockpile players anymore.
Are you saying that each league should let one team win all of it's games so that they can make more money for their league?
Is that your money component?

The money component is there will be a reward for making the playoffs. Probably close to 25 mil per playoff team.

I wouldn't say that the SEC let LSU win last year.

It's obvious that there is no parity in the SEC or in the Big 12.
Are you suggesting that on a conference level the status quo will be encouraged just so the league can make more money?
Just what is the money component?
And I'm not so sure about not letting LSU win, didn't you watch the end of game situations against North Carolina and Tennessee in 2010? Thank you Mr. Referee!

Ask Arkansas fans about Clint Stoerner's fumble in '98...

That allowed tee Martin to do what Peyton couldn't, leading Tennessee to play for all the marbles against FSU...

(06-27-2012 08:35 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(06-27-2012 08:31 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(06-26-2012 02:39 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(06-26-2012 02:30 PM)XLance Wrote:  Talent spread more evenly has been a goal of the NCAA for many years. That's why the scholarship numbers are down, so teams can't stockpile players anymore.
Are you saying that each league should let one team win all of it's games so that they can make more money for their league?
Is that your money component?

The money component is there will be a reward for making the playoffs. Probably close to 25 mil per playoff team.

I wouldn't say that the SEC let LSU win last year.

It's obvious that there is no parity in the SEC or in the Big 12.
Are you suggesting that on a conference level the status quo will be encouraged just so the league can make more money?
Just what is the money component?
And I'm not so sure about not letting LSU win, didn't you watch the end of game situations against North Carolina and Tennessee in 2010? Thank you Mr. Referee!

lol- that UNC/Tennessee end of game in 2010 was something else. It was officiated to the rule(which has been changed since).

SEC and Big 12 have had more champs than you might think in the last several years. The difference is the champs they have actually are able to run the table.

The rule on LSU's blatant pass interference at the end of the Kick-off Classic that allowed them to win the game has been changed to what?

Does that mean there is no parity in years that champs are able to run the table? Sounds like two top heavy football conferences to me that will stay that way so that they can make more money. That is what you must mean by "money component".



btw...not the Carolina/Tennessee game, but the LSU/Carolina and the LSU/Tennessee games.

(06-27-2012 12:36 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(06-27-2012 08:35 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(06-27-2012 08:31 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(06-26-2012 02:39 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(06-26-2012 02:30 PM)XLance Wrote:  Talent spread more evenly has been a goal of the NCAA for many years. That's why the scholarship numbers are down, so teams can't stockpile players anymore.
Are you saying that each league should let one team win all of it's games so that they can make more money for their league?
Is that your money component?

The money component is there will be a reward for making the playoffs. Probably close to 25 mil per playoff team.

I wouldn't say that the SEC let LSU win last year.

It's obvious that there is no parity in the SEC or in the Big 12.
Are you suggesting that on a conference level the status quo will be encouraged just so the league can make more money?
Just what is the money component?
And I'm not so sure about not letting LSU win, didn't you watch the end of game situations against North Carolina and Tennessee in 2010? Thank you Mr. Referee!

lol- that UNC/Tennessee end of game in 2010 was something else. It was officiated to the rule(which has been changed since).

SEC and Big 12 have had more champs than you might think in the last several years. The difference is the champs they have actually are able to run the table.

The rule on LSU's blatant pass interference at the end of the Kick-off Classic that allowed them to win the game has been changed to what?

Does that mean there is no parity in years that champs are able to run the table? Sounds like two top heavy football conferences to me that will stay that way so that they can make more money. That is what you must mean by "money component".



btw...not the Carolina/Tennessee game, but the LSU/Carolina and the LSU/Tennessee games.

I was thinking the Carolina/Tennessee game(that was one of the craziest finishes I've ever seen- heck I'd say both that and the Tennessee/LSU game as well)

Also, I'd use VT 2010 as a prime example of what's going on with the ACC. They ran the table, but because of 1st 2 games, they had no chance of making a playoff.