How could he possibly know who the 12 participants are?

(06-29-2012 12:08 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  If the 'Big 4' all gets a similar amount you are looking at 456 million of the hypothetical 500 million. Add in that you think the ACC gets 30 million and you have distributed 486 million. So you have 14 million to pay the remaining 65 FBS schools while still giving some to the FCS.

I now know why the GT board refers to the Big 12 as the Big Math conference. It appears their supporters just have difficulty with math.

Cheers,
Neil

(06-29-2012 12:10 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(06-29-2012 12:08 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  If the 'Big 4' all gets a similar amount you are looking at 456 million of the hypothetical 500 million. Add in that you think the ACC gets 30 million and you have distributed 486 million. So you have 14 million to pay the remaining 65 FBS schools while still giving some to the FCS.

I now know why the GT board refers to the Big 12 as the Big Math conference. It appears their supporters just have difficulty with math.

Cheers,
Neil

The GT board are the only ones that seem to have common sense with all this stuff.

(06-29-2012 12:09 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(06-29-2012 12:05 PM)HP-TBDPITL Wrote:  I am in no way a ACC defender, but if Mr. Smith (whoever he is) thinks the payouts arent going to be based on some guaranteed forumula, he's just not paying attention.

Schools have to know every year what their guaranteed revenue is, it cant jump up and down based on who is in or who is not. The real question will be what the guaranteed amount of revenue will be for each conference. SEC gets ___, Big Ten gets ____, B12___, ACC___

Its too early, IMO, to speculate. It may be another 6 months or so before we get a good idea.

I think the big x factor is how much the yearly performance matters.
I could see something like
25 million per playoff team
15 million per other BCS bowl team
That'd be 220 million of the money. The other say 280 million would be distributed on the other factors and would be the guaranteed portion of the money.

If you go by what they set up before, the lions share of it is a fixed amount. Then there is a much smaller piece that is given based on participation.

Also, everyone is assuming you can get an unlimited number of teams into this event. I can see it being capped at 3 per conference.

(06-29-2012 12:10 PM)curtis0620 Wrote:  How could he possibly know who the 12 participants are?

based on projections. And- Big 12 is pretty easy- Oklahoma St in playoff, Kansas St in champions, and I think with it being merit based- Baylor in one of the other games. VT with their soft schedule and blow out loss would probably not have gotten in a merit situation.

(06-29-2012 12:12 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(06-29-2012 12:10 PM)curtis0620 Wrote:  How could he possibly know who the 12 participants are?

based on projections. And- Big 12 is pretty easy- Oklahoma St in playoff, Kansas St in champions, and I think with it being merit based- Baylor in one of the other games. VT with their soft schedule and blow out loss would probably not have gotten in a merit situation.

If you think the other matchups won't be determined by travel and TV draw, just like now, you are in for a surprise.

(06-29-2012 12:12 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  

(06-29-2012 12:09 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(06-29-2012 12:05 PM)HP-TBDPITL Wrote:  I am in no way a ACC defender, but if Mr. Smith (whoever he is) thinks the payouts arent going to be based on some guaranteed forumula, he's just not paying attention.

Schools have to know every year what their guaranteed revenue is, it cant jump up and down based on who is in or who is not. The real question will be what the guaranteed amount of revenue will be for each conference. SEC gets ___, Big Ten gets ____, B12___, ACC___

Its too early, IMO, to speculate. It may be another 6 months or so before we get a good idea.

I think the big x factor is how much the yearly performance matters.
I could see something like
25 million per playoff team
15 million per other BCS bowl team
That'd be 220 million of the money. The other say 280 million would be distributed on the other factors and would be the guaranteed portion of the money.

If you go by what they set up before, the lions share of it is a fixed amount. Then there is a much smaller piece that is given based on participation.

Also, everyone is assuming you can get an unlimited number of teams into this event. I can see it being capped at 3 per conference.

I don't think there would be a cap at all. I think they're focusing on getting all of the top teams in. Like take last year- SEC got 2 playoff teams, and champions bowl. I don't see them not taking South Carolina because the SEC has 3 teams already- esp with South Carolina being in the top 10.

While I do agree with you on how they broke it up before, I can see the conferences pushing for more perform as you go philosophy. I go back to 1998-2005- the 2nd BCS team was only 2 of them, and so there would be a 25% difference between the conferences.

(06-29-2012 12:05 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(06-29-2012 12:00 PM)Sammy11 Wrote:  

(06-29-2012 11:55 AM)omniorange Wrote:  

(06-29-2012 11:51 AM)Sammy11 Wrote:  **Disclaimer** Acc fans I am not trolling or smack talking. Just relaying info.

Ingram Smith ‏@IngramSmith
if the numbers i just got are accurate, each Big 12 team would have received 11.4 mill from last yrs playoff model - ACC 2.5 per team #$$$$

If that is true the gap is 8.9mm in playoff payout. Most of that would be from OSU making the 4 team playoff and the rest probably from some split up of how strong a league was historically. Also if they are including the 4 bowls in the semifinal rotation that aren't hosting semis it could be due to KSU & possibly OU or Baylor getting a "new BCS" bowl and the ACC only getting Clemson in.

Don't shoot the messenger. Just thought it was worthy of discussion as it (if accurate) could hint at how the money would work in the new playoff & bowl setup.

It will be interesting to see what kind of breakdown he can give on how those numbers were reached.

Let me guess, his "source" is the Dude?

Every other "source" is thinking there will be a set amount for the power conferences (like the current BCS) and then a smaller amount added on for number of teams participating similar to earning units in NCAA basketball.

Cheers,
Neil

The question is how much gets weighted on teams participating and how much has a historical factor. I have seen many mainstream reporters writing about each factor frequently.

Then you are reading different articles than I am, since I've read the exact opposite. A larger fixed amount to the power conferences, a smaller fixed amount to ND and the other conferences, and then another smaller amount for the playoff participants. The whole purpose of the conference analysis reported recently from when the BCS started in 1998 was to establish the fact that there was a difference between the top 5 conferences and the rest to support the 'fixed' larger amount these conferences would receive over the others.

Cheers,
Neil

I have read that included but also a potion set aside for historical top 25 strength and the portion given to participants was larger.

We'll see what happens.

(06-29-2012 12:17 PM)curtis0620 Wrote:  

(06-29-2012 12:12 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(06-29-2012 12:10 PM)curtis0620 Wrote:  How could he possibly know who the 12 participants are?

based on projections. And- Big 12 is pretty easy- Oklahoma St in playoff, Kansas St in champions, and I think with it being merit based- Baylor in one of the other games. VT with their soft schedule and blow out loss would probably not have gotten in a merit situation.

If you think the other matchups won't be determined by travel and TV draw, just like now, you are in for a surprise.

What would be a better TV draw then a team with the Heisman trophy?

I think what changed was the fact that the Sugar Bowl that was selected based on TV and not on merit drew only a 6.07 rating. I think a lot of people were really turned off by that and it showed with the rating.

(06-29-2012 12:12 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(06-29-2012 12:10 PM)curtis0620 Wrote:  How could he possibly know who the 12 participants are?

based on projections. And- Big 12 is pretty easy- Oklahoma St in playoff, Kansas St in champions, and I think with it being merit based- Baylor in one of the other games. VT with their soft schedule and blow out loss would probably not have gotten in a merit situation.

I don't see them allowing 4 bids so USC is out of the event.

LSU
Alabama
OkSU
Oregon

Stanford
Arkansas
Boise
Kansas State
Wisconsin
VT
Clemson (Contract)
Baylor or Michigan

(06-29-2012 12:21 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  

(06-29-2012 12:12 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(06-29-2012 12:10 PM)curtis0620 Wrote:  How could he possibly know who the 12 participants are?

based on projections. And- Big 12 is pretty easy- Oklahoma St in playoff, Kansas St in champions, and I think with it being merit based- Baylor in one of the other games. VT with their soft schedule and blow out loss would probably not have gotten in a merit situation.

I don't see them allowing 4 bids so USC is out of the event.

LSU
Alabama
OkSU
Oregon

Stanford
Arkansas
Boise
Kansas State
Wisconsin
VT
Clemson (Contract)
Baylor or Michigan

I still think Boise being a Non-Champ is left out. And Mich St maybe ahead of Mich.

(06-29-2012 12:17 PM)curtis0620 Wrote:  

(06-29-2012 12:12 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(06-29-2012 12:10 PM)curtis0620 Wrote:  How could he possibly know who the 12 participants are?

based on projections. And- Big 12 is pretty easy- Oklahoma St in playoff, Kansas St in champions, and I think with it being merit based- Baylor in one of the other games. VT with their soft schedule and blow out loss would probably not have gotten in a merit situation.

If you think the other matchups won't be determined by travel and TV draw, just like now, you are in for a surprise.

Bill Hancock said the current concept is that it will not be determined by that. That it will be merit based.

So the best information is that it is merit based. Now, I would not be at all surprised if that concept got modified and made more like it is now.

(06-29-2012 12:21 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  

(06-29-2012 12:12 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(06-29-2012 12:10 PM)curtis0620 Wrote:  How could he possibly know who the 12 participants are?

based on projections. And- Big 12 is pretty easy- Oklahoma St in playoff, Kansas St in champions, and I think with it being merit based- Baylor in one of the other games. VT with their soft schedule and blow out loss would probably not have gotten in a merit situation.

I don't see them allowing 4 bids so USC is out of the event.

LSU
Alabama
OkSU
Oregon

Stanford
Arkansas
Boise
Kansas State
Wisconsin
VT
Clemson (Contract)
Baylor or Michigan

I think you're wrong on South Carolina, but ok, we'll do this exercise.

Stanford, Arkansas, Boise, Kansas St, Wisconsin, Clemson all in without a doubt. That's 10 teams...

You then have a group of 4 teams. Va Tech, Baylor, Michigan, and Michigan St. I think as someone said(may have been Frank)- Michigan St with their big wins and head to head over Michigan would be in. The last spot between VT team that just got blown out, Baylor, and Michigan. I think Michigan gets that last spot as 3rd Big Ten school... Mich and VT were very close in the polls.

(06-29-2012 12:25 PM)curtis0620 Wrote:  

(06-29-2012 12:21 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  

(06-29-2012 12:12 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(06-29-2012 12:10 PM)curtis0620 Wrote:  How could he possibly know who the 12 participants are?

based on projections. And- Big 12 is pretty easy- Oklahoma St in playoff, Kansas St in champions, and I think with it being merit based- Baylor in one of the other games. VT with their soft schedule and blow out loss would probably not have gotten in a merit situation.

I don't see them allowing 4 bids so USC is out of the event.

LSU
Alabama
OkSU
Oregon

Stanford
Arkansas
Boise
Kansas State
Wisconsin
VT
Clemson (Contract)
Baylor or Michigan

I still think Boise being a Non-Champ is left out. And Mich St maybe ahead of Mich.

I think it'd be Michigan over Baylor. That be all teams with at least 10 wins and no more than 2 losses except Clemson.

(06-29-2012 12:25 PM)curtis0620 Wrote:  

(06-29-2012 12:21 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  

(06-29-2012 12:12 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(06-29-2012 12:10 PM)curtis0620 Wrote:  How could he possibly know who the 12 participants are?

based on projections. And- Big 12 is pretty easy- Oklahoma St in playoff, Kansas St in champions, and I think with it being merit based- Baylor in one of the other games. VT with their soft schedule and blow out loss would probably not have gotten in a merit situation.

I don't see them allowing 4 bids so USC is out of the event.

LSU
Alabama
OkSU
Oregon

Stanford
Arkansas
Boise
Kansas State
Wisconsin
VT
Clemson (Contract)
Baylor or Michigan

I still think Boise being a Non-Champ is left out. And Mich St maybe ahead of Mich.

They would all be non champs battling. The Boise win vs Georgia would have been the game-changer.

(06-29-2012 11:56 AM)4x4hokies Wrote:  I'm skeptical that the B12 would get 84 million dollars more. If you figure that the SEC is getting at least as much money if not more then you quickly run out of money to pay everyone else under this scenario.

Pay most to SEC, Big 12, Big Ten, Pac 12, little to ACC, everyone else gets scraps.

(06-29-2012 12:06 PM)stever20 Wrote:  If that was true-
1st off- if ACC is a 14 team league in equation- between ACC and Big 12- you have 149 million. Big 12 114 million, ACC 35 million. Have to think SEC would be at 150-200 million, Pac 12 at 100 million, Big Ten at 80 million(remember, they didn't have playoff team). Big East 25 million. Others about 10 million. That's about 600 million, which seems high.

I think the gap is OSU playing in the playoff, then getting 2 teams in the BCS, vs only 1 for the ACC. That would probably be I'm guessing maybe 25 million of the gap for the playoff team, then 15 million for the 2nd BCS spot.

I could easily see there not being a set amount for the 5 conferences. I mean, if you look at the list of the top 25 points in the last 14 years, why would the SEC agree to that at all? Big 12 816-ACC 673.

I kind of think the gap would be no where near 79 million, but 50-60 would make sense given 2 extra teams and the extra money for the top 25 points. I'd guess just the extra teams would be roughly 40 million.

IMO, you shouldn't do that with the Big East. They definitely aren't going to get the money/share they have had in the past. You might as well put it $35M Other. IMO, no way the Big East alone is going to get $25M more than all others put together.

(06-29-2012 12:29 PM)EERSFAN Wrote:  

(06-29-2012 11:56 AM)4x4hokies Wrote:  I'm skeptical that the B12 would get 84 million dollars more. If you figure that the SEC is getting at least as much money if not more then you quickly run out of money to pay everyone else under this scenario.

Pay most to SEC, Big 12, Big Ten, Pac 12, little to ACC, everyone else gets scraps.

Let's see ACC has the entire Eastern seaboard. Big 12 has Texas and a few insignificant plains states.

LOL. Quit baiting people.

(06-29-2012 12:06 PM)curtis0620 Wrote:  

(06-29-2012 11:55 AM)omniorange Wrote:  

(06-29-2012 11:51 AM)Sammy11 Wrote:  **Disclaimer** Acc fans I am not trolling or smack talking. Just relaying info.

Ingram Smith ‏@IngramSmith
if the numbers i just got are accurate, each Big 12 team would have received 11.4 mill from last yrs playoff model - ACC 2.5 per team #$$$$

If that is true the gap is 8.9mm in playoff payout. Most of that would be from OSU making the 4 team playoff and the rest probably from some split up of how strong a league was historically. Also if they are including the 4 bowls in the semifinal rotation that aren't hosting semis it could be due to KSU & possibly OU or Baylor getting a "new BCS" bowl and the ACC only getting Clemson in.

Don't shoot the messenger. Just thought it was worthy of discussion as it (if accurate) could hint at how the money would work in the new playoff & bowl setup.

It will be interesting to see what kind of breakdown he can give on how those numbers were reached.

Let me guess, his "source" is the Dude?

Every other "source" is thinking there will be a set amount for the power conferences (like the current BCS) and then a smaller amount added on for number of teams participating similar to earning units in NCAA basketball.

Cheers,
Neil

It's The Dude's cousin.

I haven't read a thing in MSM that it will be equal among the major conferences. The articles implied it would be allocated based on top 25 and appearances.

Now there has been speculation it would all be tiered, i.e. that rather than allocating part based on top 25, that portion would be allocated evenly to all who exceeding a certain threshold of top 25 appearances.

However, that gets you into more of the AQ/non-AQ issues. If it is fully merit based, you have less grounds for criticism. That also would probably benefit SEC, Big 12 and Big 10 and be relatively neutral for Pac 12. They would benefit at the expense of the ACC (given that the future looks similar to the BCS era). Meanwhile the ACC would still be way ahead of the rest of the conferences.

I believe the majority of the money will be some sort of fixed distribution with a small amount reserved for additional payouts for appearance in the BCS, with a larger amount of that small amount going to FFF teams, but maybe something like this:

30% divided equally among each conference as a base. (3% each - would be $15M/year if the overall payout were $500M)
1% to ND (just cause they're ND)
1% to FCS
$300K to each indy
40% divided among the conferences based on a historical performance measure
----37% split among the big 5
----3% to BE
28% divided among the BCS participants
----3.5% each to FFF participants
----1.75% each to BCS bowl participants

Using 2011 results and proposed format last year, the distribution would have been as such:

SEC - 20.9% (3% base, 7.4% historic, 7% for 2 FFF teams, 3.5% for 2 BCS teams) or $104M --> $7.4M/school
XII - 15.65% (3% base, 7.4% historic, 3.5% for FFF team, 1.75% for BCS team) or $78.25M --> $7.8M/school
B1G - 12.15% (3% base, 7.4% historic, 1.75% for BCS team) or $60.75M --> $5M/school
PAC - 15.65% (3% base, 7.4% historic, 3.5% for FFF team, 1.75% for BCS team) or $78.25M --> $6.5M/school
ACC - 13.9% (3% base, 7.4% historic, 3.5% for 2 BCS teams) or $69.5M --> $5M/school
BE - 7.75% (3% base, 3% historic, 1.75 for BCS team) or $38.75M --> $3.2M/school
MWC, CUSA, MAC, SBC - 3% each (3% base) or $15M --> $1.25M/school (based on 12)