http://jacksonville.com/sports/college/2...onferences

(07-11-2013 09:25 AM)TIGER-PAUL Wrote:  http://jacksonville.com/sports/college/2...onferences

There are enough bowls to go around. I am an SEC guy, but I still feel the P5 conferences have access to way too many bowls. Top five or six or five should get in a bowl game. Not every school in the conference...

Hidden in that article was he mention of the Liberty Bowl now being a B12 vs SEC match up.

(07-11-2013 02:54 PM)SApuro Wrote:  Hidden in that article was he mention of the Liberty Bowl now being a B12 vs SEC match up.

I saw that, but there were so many inaccuracies in the article that Im not sure if he actually knows that or if he just is assuming that. Seems to me it its true, he buried the lead.

(07-11-2013 04:10 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-11-2013 02:54 PM)SApuro Wrote:  Hidden in that article was he mention of the Liberty Bowl now being a B12 vs SEC match up.

I saw that, but there were so many inaccuracies in the article that Im not sure if he actually knows that or if he just is assuming that. Seems to me it its true, he buried the lead.

I wouldn't call that burying the lead. The only people who have doubts about the Liberty Bowl are a few hopeful sorts on the AAC board. The rest of the college football world cares little what the LB matchup is and assumes it will be Big 12 vs SEC.

(07-11-2013 06:40 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-11-2013 04:10 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-11-2013 02:54 PM)SApuro Wrote:  Hidden in that article was he mention of the Liberty Bowl now being a B12 vs SEC match up.

I saw that, but there were so many inaccuracies in the article that Im not sure if he actually knows that or if he just is assuming that. Seems to me it its true, he buried the lead.

I wouldn't call that burying the lead. The only people who have doubts about the Liberty Bowl are a few hopeful sorts on the AAC board. The rest of the college football world cares little what the LB matchup is and assumes it will be Big 12 vs SEC.

The whole article is kinda a fail. It's about how the small conferences are reaping rewards and then discusses how they are on the outside looking in on the bowl and money picture.....how is that news or something that's not known? The Liberty hasn't signed and is still unknown (of course, the writer also is blissfully unaware of the the Military Bowl deal, which was tweeted by McMurphy, but writes that the Birmingham and St Pete deals are signed). Frankly, I dont think the guy knows crap. Plus, I dont think 23 bowls have deals with non-AQ leagues. That would mean only 12 don't. The only way that makes sense is if he is counting backup agreements and at large placements--which is misleading.

(07-11-2013 07:15 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-11-2013 06:40 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-11-2013 04:10 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-11-2013 02:54 PM)SApuro Wrote:  Hidden in that article was he mention of the Liberty Bowl now being a B12 vs SEC match up.

I saw that, but there were so many inaccuracies in the article that Im not sure if he actually knows that or if he just is assuming that. Seems to me it its true, he buried the lead.

I wouldn't call that burying the lead. The only people who have doubts about the Liberty Bowl are a few hopeful sorts on the AAC board. The rest of the college football world cares little what the LB matchup is and assumes it will be Big 12 vs SEC.

The whole article is kinda a fail. It's about how the small conferences are reaping rewards and then discusses how they are on the outside looking in on the bowl and money picture.....how is that news or something that's not known? The Liberty hasn't signed and is still unknown (of course, the writer also is blissfully unaware of the the Military Bowl deal, which was tweeted by McMurphy, but writes that the Birmingham and St Pete deals are signed). Frankly, I dont think the guy knows crap. Plus, I dont think 23 bowls have deals with non-AQ leagues. That would mean only 12 don't. The only way that makes sense is if he is counting backup agreements and at large placements--which is misleading.

I agree with everything you say here. It is a sloppy article. I just don't think the LB being SEC vs Big 12 would be burying the lead.

(07-11-2013 07:15 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The whole article is kinda a fail. It's about how the small conferences are reaping rewards and then discusses how they are on the outside looking in on the bowl and money picture.....how is that news or something that's not known? The Liberty hasn't signed and is still unknown (of course, the writer also is blissfully unaware of the the Military Bowl deal, which was tweeted by McMurphy, but writes that the Birmingham and St Pete deals are signed). Frankly, I dont think the guy knows crap. Plus, I dont think 23 bowls have deals with non-AQ leagues. That would mean only 12 don't. The only way that makes sense is if he is counting backup agreements and at large placements--which is misleading.

Agree. I don't think we are reaping any benefits when the payouts for these bowls don't cover costs and the schools participating are required to guarantee large blocks of ticket sales at high prices.

The benefits will be to the conference that produces the at-large team, and to those programs nimble enough to swap bowl ties into the mid-tier bowls when the P5 does not have an eligible team.

I think the SBC is a big winner in the new system since they will have just as much money as the other G5 conferences even though they were forced to add a circus clown list of new schools to stay afloat.

Appalachian State is perfectly capable of matching Boise State, using proceeds from CFP bowls to fund stadium expansions and enhanced coaching salaries. The SBC like the old WAC is going to have 3-4 bowl tie ins to work with in the next cycle.

CUSA is going to face a lot more competition for recruiting in the South. Before you had the 12 CUSA schools + 9 from the SBC. Now you are going to have 8 AAC schools, 14 CUSA schools and 9 from the SBC which is an increase of 10 more schools going after the same players. The AAC schools will get their pick and after that it will be a dog fight between CUSA and the SBC for the remaining talent.

(07-11-2013 01:20 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(07-11-2013 09:25 AM)TIGER-PAUL Wrote:  http://jacksonville.com/sports/college/2...onferences

There are enough bowls to go around. I am an SEC guy, but I still feel the P5 conferences have access to way too many bowls. Top five or six or five should get in a bowl game. Not every school in the conference...

I'm an FCS/soon lower level FBS guy with App State, so from my perspective, I like and agree with this SEC guy - though admittedly for more selfish reasons. I've always disliked it when 75-80% of a power conference get into bowls or the basketball tournament. I've felt their should be a secondary requirement which would give a slight leg up to the non-P5 schools. Something like minimum .500 conference record. Sure a couple of teams towards the bottom of the SEC are probably better then the third or fourth team in the SBC or CAA, but the difference are at the margins. And who really had the better season deserving a reward - a mediocre team with SEC or BIG 10 resources or a team near the top of a low profile league?

As a fan of a non P5 program I am disappointed any time I read a quote from a G5 representative expressing support for the current structure. It's all a sham, 10 conferences in the same division splitting the pot 70/27 is not acceptable. We're all either part of the same subdivision or we're not. And I don't give a rip about the P5's perceived value vs the G5 either. They get pre-ranked in the top 25, feed off of G5 cannon fodder in September and then shut the door on any chance for a top G5 school to play for a National Championship. It's bogus.

(07-11-2013 07:15 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The whole article is kinda a fail. It's about how the small conferences are reaping rewards and then discusses how they are on the outside looking in on the bowl and money picture.....how is that news or something that's not known?

I think he's comparing it to back in the day, when there were fewer bowls. Back when there were 15 bowls or so, marginal power-conference teams would go, and non-AQ/lower-FBS/etc teams with good records would be sitting at home.

Now, if a 9-3 Louisiana Tech doesn't go bowling, it's because the AD screwed up and gets fired. Ten years ago, Bowling Green goes 9-3, beats Missouri and Kansas, is ranked for a few weeks, and stays home.

That's why the small conferences like the way things are now. Maybe their bowl is in Detroit or Mobile, AL or Boise Idaho, or maybe it's on Wednesday December 19 on ESPN-U, but there's a bowl.

(07-12-2013 05:52 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  As a fan of a non P5 program I am disappointed any time I read a quote from a G5 representative expressing support for the current structure. It's all a sham, 10 conferences in the same division splitting the pot 70/27 is not acceptable. We're all either part of the same subdivision or we're not.

Ok, you're not. Ohio State and Ohio University. are not operating the same type of enterprise. Feel better?

Quote:And I don't give a rip about the P5's perceived value vs the G5 either. They get pre-ranked in the top 25, feed off of G5 cannon fodder in September and then shut the door on any chance for a top G5 school to play for a National Championship. It's bogus.

(07-12-2013 05:52 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  As a fan of a non P5 program I am disappointed any time I read a quote from a G5 representative expressing support for the current structure. It's all a sham, 10 conferences in the same division splitting the pot 70/27 is not acceptable. We're all either part of the same subdivision or we're not. And I don't give a rip about the P5's perceived value vs the G5 either. They get pre-ranked in the top 25, feed off of G5 cannon fodder in September and then shut the door on any chance for a top G5 school to play for a National Championship. It's bogus.

Seems as if you think that the money split is based on on-field performance. If it is, let's be honest: P5 schools don't just finish with higher rankings than G5 schools for arbitrary reasons, they finish higher because they really are, on average, better than G5 schools. Just look at computer rankings like Masseys cumulation of 100+ computers, that have no built-in bias towards P5 schools. What do we see?

Last year, the top 15 end-of-season teams were all P5, and 19 of the top 20 were, and 33 of the top 40 were (see link at bottom). Sorry, but if on-the-field performance determined the money split, it really should be more like 90-10 than 73-27.

But truth is, the money split is not based on performance, it is based on the media value of the schools, because the TV networks that are paying the bills do not care about who wins, they care about who watches. And the fact of the matter is that FAR more people tune in to watch Ohio State than Ohio, LSU than UL-Monroe, and Alabama rather than Troy. Probably about 10x as many, meaning a 90-10 split is probably fair on that basis too.

So overall, the facts suggest that 73-27 really is quite generous to the G5, and my POV is that of a fan of a G5 school.

http://masseyratings.com/cf/compare.htm

(07-12-2013 06:11 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-12-2013 05:52 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  As a fan of a non P5 program I am disappointed any time I read a quote from a G5 representative expressing support for the current structure. It's all a sham, 10 conferences in the same division splitting the pot 70/27 is not acceptable. We're all either part of the same subdivision or we're not. And I don't give a rip about the P5's perceived value vs the G5 either. They get pre-ranked in the top 25, feed off of G5 cannon fodder in September and then shut the door on any chance for a top G5 school to play for a National Championship. It's bogus.

Seems as if you think that the money split is based on on-field performance. If it is, let's be honest: P5 schools don't just finish with higher rankings than G5 schools for arbitrary reasons, they finish higher because they really are, on average, better than G5 schools. Just look at computer rankings like Masseys cumulation of 100+ computers, that have no built-in bias towards P5 schools. What do we see?

Last year, the top 15 end-of-season teams were all P5, and 19 of the top 20 were, and 33 of the top 40 were (see link at bottom). Sorry, but if on-the-field performance determined the money split, it really should be more like 90-10 than 73-27.

But truth is, the money split is not based on performance, it is based on the media value of the schools, because the TV networks that are paying the bills do not care about who wins, they care about who watches. And the fact of the matter is that FAR more people tune in to watch Ohio State than Ohio, LSU than UL-Monroe, and Alabama rather than Troy. Probably about 10x as many, meaning a 90-10 split is probably fair on that basis too.

So overall, the facts suggest that 73-27 really is quite generous to the G5, and my POV is that of a fan of a G5 school.

http://masseyratings.com/cf/compare.htm

and the media value is derived from the media propping them up. It's a self fulfilling cycle. Take the P5 schools off ESPN, dump them to ESPNU and ESPN3 for 20 years and see what happens to their value.

start ranking G5 schools in the top 25 in the preseason and see how many survive the cut. Of course there are more P5 schools ranked.

(07-13-2013 02:09 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  

(07-12-2013 06:11 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-12-2013 05:52 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  As a fan of a non P5 program I am disappointed any time I read a quote from a G5 representative expressing support for the current structure. It's all a sham, 10 conferences in the same division splitting the pot 70/27 is not acceptable. We're all either part of the same subdivision or we're not. And I don't give a rip about the P5's perceived value vs the G5 either. They get pre-ranked in the top 25, feed off of G5 cannon fodder in September and then shut the door on any chance for a top G5 school to play for a National Championship. It's bogus.

Seems as if you think that the money split is based on on-field performance. If it is, let's be honest: P5 schools don't just finish with higher rankings than G5 schools for arbitrary reasons, they finish higher because they really are, on average, better than G5 schools. Just look at computer rankings like Masseys cumulation of 100+ computers, that have no built-in bias towards P5 schools. What do we see?

Last year, the top 15 end-of-season teams were all P5, and 19 of the top 20 were, and 33 of the top 40 were (see link at bottom). Sorry, but if on-the-field performance determined the money split, it really should be more like 90-10 than 73-27.

But truth is, the money split is not based on performance, it is based on the media value of the schools, because the TV networks that are paying the bills do not care about who wins, they care about who watches. And the fact of the matter is that FAR more people tune in to watch Ohio State than Ohio, LSU than UL-Monroe, and Alabama rather than Troy. Probably about 10x as many, meaning a 90-10 split is probably fair on that basis too.

So overall, the facts suggest that 73-27 really is quite generous to the G5, and my POV is that of a fan of a G5 school.

http://masseyratings.com/cf/compare.htm

and the media value is derived from the media propping them up. It's a self fulfilling cycle. Take the P5 schools off ESPN, dump them to ESPNU and ESPN3 for 20 years and see what happens to their value.

start ranking G5 schools in the top 25 in the preseason and see how many survive the cut. Of course there are more P5 schools ranked.

Yeah, and let me guess: you probably also think that the Kentucky mens basketball team is more popular than the Ohio women's basketball team because the former play a lot on CBS and the latter on ESPN3?

You have cause and effect totally confused. CBS puts Alabama on and not Ohio because the former have a lot more fans.

Let's be honest, there's just a very select number of schools that have a true value to the TV networks, the rest are just there because of association or because the networks need inventory. Do we all think Washington State has the same value as USC? Of course not. What about Indiana compared to Ohio State? Or Texas compared to Iowa State? Or Florida State compared to Wake Forest or Boston College. I would say there's only 10-15 schools that bring value to any TV network and it's not just college athletics where this happens. Do the Kansas City Royals or Oakland A's are in any way comparable to the New York Yankees? Are the Jacksonville Jaguars valued as the same as the Dallas Cowboys? Or the Sacramento Kings and Milwaukee Bucks compared to the L.A. Lakers or Boston Celtics?

(07-13-2013 05:32 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  Let's be honest, there's just a very select number of schools that have a true value to the TV networks, the rest are just there because of association or because the networks need inventory. Do we all think Washington State has the same value as USC? Of course not. What about Indiana compared to Ohio State? Or Texas compared to Iowa State? Or Florida State compared to Wake Forest or Boston College. I would say there's only 10-15 schools that bring value to any TV network and it's not just college athletics where this happens. Do the Kansas City Royals or Oakland A's are in any way comparable to the New York Yankees? Are the Jacksonville Jaguars valued as the same as the Dallas Cowboys? Or the Sacramento Kings and Milwaukee Bucks compared to the L.A. Lakers or Boston Celtics?

You are correct, but what is the point?

The point is most people assume just because X school is in a power conference somehow they have more value over a Gof5 school like BYU or UConn. I don't see Oregon State having more value over UConn or Baylor over BYU but most people assume Oregon State and Baylor have more value because of the conference they belong but we all know it's the USC, Texas, Oklahoma and the Oregons of the world that bring TV value to their respective conferences and the rest benefit having those schools in their conference (I'm talking strictly about football here).

I believe a school like Ohio State, Texas, Florida, Notre Dame, etc can command TV value because of the history, tradition and championships those schools have plus they usually have good athletic programs from top to bottom and are attractive to TV networks and are expected to get paid well. I absolutely don't have any issue with that. But I find it laughable when people suggest the likes of Mississippi State, Iowa State, Indiana, Wake Forest, Wazzu, etc are in the same category when we all know they benefit from conference affiliation.

That was my point.

well said. to tie it back to OP, the article quotes MAC and AAC commissioners voicing their satisfaction with the current structure because of the scraps they've been thrown where as mentioned, schools of similar stature lucky enough to be in the right conference reap substantially more from the system.