To all those slamming the WKU Prez...He was just keeping it REAL!! His point is that it takes ALL conferences. When it's all said and done, the Power Conferences COULD essentially break off to form their own division...ECU with its 50,000+ fans (that we're all CONSTANTLY reminded about) will PRETTY MUCH be in the same boat as the WKU 's of the world. Like it or not...it is what it is!!

(06-25-2012 04:25 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(06-25-2012 04:13 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(06-25-2012 04:01 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(06-25-2012 03:59 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  It shouldn't be split by conference. It should be split by team.

That will never happen in a million years.

I know it won't because it's the right thing to do.

I don't think it's a matter of right or wrong. University presidents with a fiduciary duty to protect the schools that they work for may very well decide that it's better for them to get a guaranteed smaller amount every year than get a massive windfall one year and zero dollars the next year. In fact, virtually all of them believe that, which is why they split it up the way that they do.

I once read a story about how the NFL owners are a group of the world's most successful and ardent capitalists with the businesses that made them billionaires, but when it comes to splitting NFL revenue, they are complete socialists. Similarly, that's how the power conferences view their own conference revenue.

The NFL owners are not socialists, they're plutocratic oligarchs. Socialists would allow anyone to join and work for the collective goal. The NFL isn't an open invitation league whatsoever. They work together as an plutocratic oligarchy because they know that the failure of one team means the likely failure of others. They don't work for the benefit of everyone (socialists) they only work for the benefit of themselves (plutocracy).

That said, it works. The SEC works well by shovelling its money to Ole Miss because it keeps even the bottom feeders of the conference from breaking away - and those at the top need those bottom feeders to get conference wins. And on occasion, Ole Miss actually plays well, or at least well enough to get ranked. Duke, Vanderbilt, and Indiana are truly the only perennial cellar-dwellars in the BCS AQ conferences (and Vandy is on the rise). I believe every single other team has finished in the top 25 BCS rankings at least once in the last 15 years.

(06-25-2012 04:45 PM)TitanTopper Wrote:  To all those slamming the WKU Prez...He was just keeping it REAL!! His point is that it takes ALL conferences. When it's all said and done, the Power Conferences COULD essentially break off to form their own division...ECU with its 50,000+ fans (that we're all CONSTANTLY reminded about) will PRETTY MUCH be in the same boat as the WKU 's of the world. Like it or not...it is what it is!!

He still sounded like a little b!tch.

If he was "keeping it real" he'd at least be honest about how much a bull$sh!t system he's dealing with.

And no.....we're NOT in the same boat. We don't have to whore ourselves out for revenue.

(06-25-2012 04:39 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  Frank, you might be right about that but I'd call it a welfare system more than anything else. Any system in which Northwestern, Illinois, Wash St, Old Piss, Duke, etc get an equal cut of FOOTBALL MONEY by their conference is a bull$hit system. It's even worse when they get a bigger cut than Boise State.

It's also a little annoying that you feel the need to explain it with your typical Big 10 smugness. I guess it's kind of nice when the Illini can ride that gravy train isn't it?

It also infuriates me that ECU, Tulsa and USM have to split our TV money with the dredges of UAB, Rice and Tulane and now Charlotte.

Where was I smug about it? If I were running any university (whether it's Illinois or ECU), I'd want guaranteed dollars every year. The dollars might be bigger in the Big Ten compared to C-USA, but that doesn't change the structural underpinnings of the thinking. ECU hasn't won the C-USA championship every single year, yet I'm sure your chancellor wants to make sure that it gets a cut of the C-USA bowl money annually.

If we take your argument that this is a welfare system, then shouldn't you be arguing that absolutely no school other than the top 25 or 30 most popular ones should be making any money at all? Those are the ones that the TV networks are paying for. Isn't the NCAA Tournament a massive redistribution of wealth since people will watch Butler play Duke, but not if Butler is playing another midmajor? What you seem to be saying is that Ohio State, Texas, Florida and USC should be taking home even more than they do now. That's fine if that's what your argument is, but it seems to be rooted more about bringing more schools down to ECU's level of revenue as opposed to raising ECU up.

(06-25-2012 04:46 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  The NFL owners are not socialists, they're plutocratic oligarchs. Socialists would allow anyone to join and work for the collective goal. The NFL isn't an open invitation league whatsoever. They work together as an plutocratic oligarchy because they know that the failure of one team means the likely failure of others. They don't work for the benefit of everyone (socialists) they only work for the benefit of themselves (plutocracy).

That said, it works. The SEC works well by shovelling its money to Ole Miss because it keeps even the bottom feeders of the conference from breaking away - and those at the top need those bottom feeders to get conference wins. And on occasion, Ole Miss actually plays well, or at least well enough to get ranked. Duke and Indiana are truly the only perennial cellar-dwellars in the BCS AQ conferences. I believe every single other team has finished in the top 25 BCS rankings at least once in the last 15 years.

Great stuff. You're completely correct about the plutocratic oligarchy.

One thing to note about Duke and Indiana: they are still elite blue bloods in basketball. We may count that as worthless in conference realignment terms, but to the extent that there are any basketball programs that are worth anything, they are on that very short list. The Big Ten Network, for instance, wouldn't make the money that it does without its heavy basketball schedule (and it would have only gotten carriage in Indiana by having IU hoops).

Frank, I believe there should be a BCS $$$ distribution model based solely on performance, PERIOD. The champion should get the most and #125 (or whatever FBS number we're up to) should get the least. It should be proportional from top to bottom. In other words #2 gets slightly less than #1, #3 gets slightly less than #2....and so on all the way down the line.

The SEC, Big10, Big12, Pac12, ACC already have their massive advantagse. It's called flagship, landgrant and elite private funding and massive TV contracts.

There should at least be SOMETHING that can be EARNED by the rest of us. If that means the majority of that money is EARNED by schools in the Big5 confereces, so be it, that's how it should be.

http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id...ing-primer

I'm amazed that with all the leaking that has gone on about format, sites, etc. that this bit hasn't gotten out:

Quote:Two elements that still must be discussed further and likely won't be resolved Tuesday: understanding playoff access and revenue distribution. Although there's an agreement in principle among the commissioners for how the revenue should be divided, the presidents want to have a thorough discussion on this topic.

An agreement in principle? And it hasn't leaked out? But yet McMurphy and Staples seem to have all the other details (bowls involved, timelines, etc.), but not the revenue. Hmm...

Also, this should settle a debate between stever20 and me:

Quote:We could end up seeing three of the bowls take place Dec. 31 and the other three, including the Rose, on Jan. 1. The championship game then would take place about 10 days later.

(06-25-2012 06:39 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id...ing-primer

I'm amazed that with all the leaking that has gone on about format, sites, etc. that this bit hasn't gotten out:

Quote:Two elements that still must be discussed further and likely won't be resolved Tuesday: understanding playoff access and revenue distribution. Although there's an agreement in principle among the commissioners for how the revenue should be divided, the presidents want to have a thorough discussion on this topic.

An agreement in principle? And it hasn't leaked out? But yet McMurphy and Staples seem to have all the other details (bowls involved, timelines, etc.), but not the revenue. Hmm...

Also, this should settle a debate between stever20 and me:

Quote:We could end up seeing three of the bowls take place Dec. 31 and the other three, including the Rose, on Jan. 1. The championship game then would take place about 10 days later.

That comment destroyed his credibility. You don't want 3 games on December 31.

(06-25-2012 06:39 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id...ing-primer

I'm amazed that with all the leaking that has gone on about format, sites, etc. that this bit hasn't gotten out:

Quote:Two elements that still must be discussed further and likely won't be resolved Tuesday: understanding playoff access and revenue distribution. Although there's an agreement in principle among the commissioners for how the revenue should be divided, the presidents want to have a thorough discussion on this topic.

An agreement in principle? And it hasn't leaked out? But yet McMurphy and Staples seem to have all the other details (bowls involved, timelines, etc.), but not the revenue. Hmm...

Also, this should settle a debate between stever20 and me:

Quote:We could end up seeing three of the bowls take place Dec. 31 and the other three, including the Rose, on Jan. 1. The championship game then would take place about 10 days later.

lets look at the generic calendar...
NYD Sunday:
SF would be on NYE I think. Title game probably Mon 1/9.
NYD Monday:
SF would be on NYD.
NYD Tuesday:
SF probably would be on NYE- so title game could be on Thu 1/10.
NYD Wednesday:
SF probably on NYE- title game on Thu 1/9
NYD Thursday:
SF on either one- title game on Mon 1/12
NYD Friday:
SF on NYD- title game on Mon 1/11
NYD Saturday:
SF on NYD- title game on Mon 1/10

So by a quick look- we'd be seeing sf on NYD 3 of the times and NYE 3 of the times. Title game either on the Monday or Thursday after NFL WC weekend.

I will say a key word in the piece- Could. Not set in stone at all....

One thing that is key from the piece:
The selection committee could end up selecting participants for more than just the four-team playoff, especially because the additional bowls will provide access for champions from smaller conferences. The same guidelines applied to selecting the playoff participants – strength of schedule, valuing conference championships -- also will be used to determine who appears in some of the additional bowls. For example, if the Mountain West champion and the Big Ten's No. 2 team have comparable profiles, including strength of schedules, and are ranked 12th and 13th, the Mountain West champion likely would get the nod to a big bowl because of its championship.

While there will be access for smaller-conference champions, the bowls who have contracts with certain leagues will continue to feature teams from those leagues. If the Rose Bowl isn't a national semifinal and loses the Pac-12 and/or Big Ten champion to a semifinal game, it will replace them with Pac-12 and Big Ten teams. The only way the Rose Bowl features teams not from the Big Ten or Pac-12 is if it's a semifinal.

So sounds as if will have access to some of these bowls for schools that finish at a certain threshold. now the hard part- finishing at that threshold!

(06-25-2012 03:49 PM)Chappy Wrote:  

(06-25-2012 03:44 PM)Tiguar Wrote:  

(06-25-2012 03:38 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  Boy thanks WKU president, way to fight for any level of equality. That's pathetic on his part to put those statements out. If I were a WKU fan I'd be pretty damn ashamed of my president showing that little backbone.

What did he say that's incorrect?

"It’s those five conferences who have invested the most, have the largest stadiums, and create the television marquee. We just want to be sure we get a little more proportionate share."

Many teams in those conferences, sure, but not all of them. For instance, we have a larger stadium and higher TV ratings than two of the four AQ teams in our state. Essentially he is saying Duke has invested more in football and has a larger stadium than us. That's simply false.

And that's WKU's problem because......?

I'm reminded of a similar type comment that SBC commish Karl Benson made a few months ago...

Clearly the Belt was just wanting to get as much money as they could get.

(06-25-2012 04:25 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(06-25-2012 04:13 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(06-25-2012 04:01 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(06-25-2012 03:59 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  It shouldn't be split by conference. It should be split by team.

That will never happen in a million years.

I know it won't because it's the right thing to do.

I don't think it's a matter of right or wrong. University presidents with a fiduciary duty to protect the schools that they work for may very well decide that it's better for them to get a guaranteed smaller amount every year than get a massive windfall one year and zero dollars the next year. In fact, virtually all of them believe that, which is why they split it up the way that they do.

I once read a story about how the NFL owners are a group of the world's most successful and ardent capitalists with the businesses that made them billionaires, but when it comes to splitting NFL revenue, they are complete socialists. Similarly, that's how the power conferences view their own conference revenue.

Actually they don't split things up that evenly either....

Indiana Generated Revenue is $66M for 2010
Ohio State Generated Revenue is $123M for 2010

Iowa State Generated Revenue is $43M for 2010
Texas Generated Revenue is $143M for 2010

Mississipi State Generate Revenue is $33M for 2010
Florida Generated Revenue is $112M for 2010

Maryland Generated Revenue is $40M for 2010
Florida State Generated Revenue is $67M for 2010

These schools all try to make up the gap by socking it to their students indirectly via University funding or directly via Student Fees which have gone up by double digit percentages over the past 6 years.

The ACC has pursued more even revenue sharing and all they have done is insure their top schools get left in the dust.

Comments like these just kinda highlight my frustration with a lot of the other non-AQ schools. It feels like some either don't care about competing at the highest level, or know they just can't and are trying to get whatever scraps they can get just to make ends meet. This is the group we are stuck with, and one of the many reasons ECU fans are pissed.

(06-25-2012 07:43 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  Comments like these just kinda highlight my frustration with a lot of the other non-AQ schools. It feels like some either don't care about competing at the highest level, or know they just can't and are trying to get whatever scraps they can get just to make ends meet. This is the group we are stuck with, and one of the many reasons ECU fans are pissed.

+ X 50,000+

(06-25-2012 08:00 PM)TitanTopper Wrote:  

(06-25-2012 07:43 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  Comments like these just kinda highlight my frustration with a lot of the other non-AQ schools. It feels like some either don't care about competing at the highest level, or know they just can't and are trying to get whatever scraps they can get just to make ends meet. This is the group we are stuck with, and one of the many reasons ECU fans are pissed.

+ X 50,000+

I'd rather do that than just accept my program can't really win and is just forever going to be the whipping boy for SEC teams and be stuck playing buy games forever. You and the rest of the Sun-Belt are just the SEC's little bit*h conference.

(06-25-2012 03:49 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(06-25-2012 03:44 PM)Tiguar Wrote:  

(06-25-2012 03:38 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  Boy thanks WKU president, way to fight for any level of equality. That's pathetic on his part to put those statements out. If I were a WKU fan I'd be pretty damn ashamed of my president showing that little backbone.

What did he say that's incorrect?

Nothing he said was technically incorrect, but just the attitude that "hey just toss us a couple more crumbs and I'll shut up and do what you ask" is pathetic. I'm glad Cowen is on that board at least. I know he won't roll over like a punk for a few extra bucks.

Cowen already has. His comments the other day were pretty weak. He seemed ok with the current system (even with its rigged bought and paid for sleezection committee). He just made some comment about we need to figure out a way to get more bowl participation down the road. Didnt sound like there was much fight left in him.

the thing is- quite frankly you have the big 5 if you will plus big east plus sbc plus mac plus wac on one side, then MWC and CUSA on the other side. MWC and CUSA didn't stand a chance at all.

(06-25-2012 07:24 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(06-25-2012 03:49 PM)Chappy Wrote:  

(06-25-2012 03:44 PM)Tiguar Wrote:  

(06-25-2012 03:38 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  Boy thanks WKU president, way to fight for any level of equality. That's pathetic on his part to put those statements out. If I were a WKU fan I'd be pretty damn ashamed of my president showing that little backbone.

What did he say that's incorrect?

"It’s those five conferences who have invested the most, have the largest stadiums, and create the television marquee. We just want to be sure we get a little more proportionate share."

Many teams in those conferences, sure, but not all of them. For instance, we have a larger stadium and higher TV ratings than two of the four AQ teams in our state. Essentially he is saying Duke has invested more in football and has a larger stadium than us. That's simply false.

And that's WKU's problem because......?

Because his comments are indicative of the attitudes shown by schools that are looking to get paid for doing very little, while lumping schools that do their part in with his opportunistic group. What pisses people off is that he is representing schools that do not share his values. Non-AQs should have a better representative/speaker than an opportunist.

(06-25-2012 08:08 PM)apex_pirate Wrote:  

(06-25-2012 07:24 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(06-25-2012 03:49 PM)Chappy Wrote:  

(06-25-2012 03:44 PM)Tiguar Wrote:  

(06-25-2012 03:38 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  Boy thanks WKU president, way to fight for any level of equality. That's pathetic on his part to put those statements out. If I were a WKU fan I'd be pretty damn ashamed of my president showing that little backbone.

What did he say that's incorrect?

"It’s those five conferences who have invested the most, have the largest stadiums, and create the television marquee. We just want to be sure we get a little more proportionate share."

Many teams in those conferences, sure, but not all of them. For instance, we have a larger stadium and higher TV ratings than two of the four AQ teams in our state. Essentially he is saying Duke has invested more in football and has a larger stadium than us. That's simply false.

And that's WKU's problem because......?

Because his comments are indicative of the attitudes shown by schools that are looking to get paid for doing very little, while lumping schools that do their part in with his opportunistic group. What pisses people off is that he is representing schools that do not share his values. Non-AQs should have a better representative/speaker than an opportunist.

Well to me, he's representing the Sun Belt. For the Sun Belt, do you think they give a rip about access to a playoff? No way. They want as much money as they can get. Access won't matter to them one iota..

There's 2 tiers of non-aq's. Their goals are not mutually exclusive....