(11-06-2013 12:54 PM)mlb Wrote:  

(11-06-2013 12:15 PM)shafted1 Wrote:  Despite all the hype, March Madness alone produces approximately 1/3 of 'total' revenue for the NCAA. If the p5 created their own division, they were faced with the prospects of losing out. The other schools had already begun to reject the notion of allowing the p5 to remain competitive in Div I for basketball without sharing FB revenue.

Don't fool yourself... there are outs in the current contract for March Madness that would allow CBS and Turner out if the power 5 conferences leave the organization. The biggest chunk of money is still tied to those conferences for basketball too. If they formed their own organization and sold rights to a big post season tourney they would certainly get more money than what is left in the NCAA.

I disagree. The p5 schools are not producing nearly as much of the revenue as implied. They started out wanting exclusive membership consisting of only those 5 conferences. Consider how quickly they changed their tune and expanded their 'master plan' to include the bulk of the G5. Their latest estimates included from 8 to 10 conferences; nearly doubling the original plan.

Realignment is about money, not football. If the p5 number crunching supported your theory about producing the biggest chunk of the money, they wouldn't even bother to expand their membership to those other 3 to 5 conferences. That would mean a smaller piece of the pie! Despite the claims of big money for the p5 conferences, there are 'only' 7 universities that make a profit or break even. The rest rely upon subsidies; Alabama being amongst them.

(11-06-2013 05:19 PM)shafted1 Wrote:  

(11-06-2013 12:54 PM)mlb Wrote:  

(11-06-2013 12:15 PM)shafted1 Wrote:  Despite all the hype, March Madness alone produces approximately 1/3 of 'total' revenue for the NCAA. If the p5 created their own division, they were faced with the prospects of losing out. The other schools had already begun to reject the notion of allowing the p5 to remain competitive in Div I for basketball without sharing FB revenue.

Don't fool yourself... there are outs in the current contract for March Madness that would allow CBS and Turner out if the power 5 conferences leave the organization. The biggest chunk of money is still tied to those conferences for basketball too. If they formed their own organization and sold rights to a big post season tourney they would certainly get more money than what is left in the NCAA.

Is this the reason why you hear new verbage never heard before from Delaney, about wanting a big tent? "We can be in a big tent if we can get the appropriate matter of political redistribution. We can have an (NCAA men's basketball) tournament, everyone can be in it. We can do revenue sharing. We can all brand together. We can all be Division I together. We can all have a big tent
I disagree. The p5 schools are not producing nearly as much of the revenue as implied. They started out wanting exclusive membership consisting of only those 5 conferences. Consider how quickly they changed their tune and expanded their 'master plan' to include the bulk of the G5. Their latest estimates included from 8 to 10 conferences; nearly doubling the original plan.

Realignment is about money, not football. If the p5 number crunching supported your theory about producing the biggest chunk of the money, they wouldn't even bother to expand their membership to those other 3 to 5 conferences. That would mean a smaller piece of the pie! Despite the claims of big money for the p5 conferences, there are 'only' 7 universities that make a profit or break even. The rest rely upon subsidies; Alabama being amongst them.

Is this the reason why you hear new verbage never heard before from Delaney, about wanting a big tent? "We can be in a big tent if we can get the appropriate matter of political redistribution. We can have an (NCAA men's basketball) tournament, everyone can be in it. We can do revenue sharing. We can all brand together. We can all be Division I together. We can all have a big tent."

(11-06-2013 08:16 PM)BIgCatonProwl Wrote:  Is this the reason why you hear new verbage never heard before from Delaney, about wanting a big tent? "We can be in a big tent if we can get the appropriate matter of political redistribution. We can have an (NCAA men's basketball) tournament, everyone can be in it. We can do revenue sharing. We can all brand together. We can all be Division I together. We can all have a big tent."

Delaney's comments are based upon the expanded master plan which entails 3 to 5 additional conferences above and beyond the p5. The addition of those conferences would effectively raise their numbers from 68 (+/-) to something in excess of 100. The likes of Cincinnati, UConn and Memphis would be included in an effort to strengthen their position. Delaney isn't exactly thinking before speaking since the Big 10 is currently struggling with fulfilling its obligation to the 8 bowl games they purchased. This isn't the first time he's found it necessary to back-pedal from earlier statements.

(11-06-2013 08:42 PM)shafted1 Wrote:  

(11-06-2013 08:16 PM)BIgCatonProwl Wrote:  Is this the reason why you hear new verbage never heard before from Delaney, about wanting a big tent? "We can be in a big tent if we can get the appropriate matter of political redistribution. We can have an (NCAA men's basketball) tournament, everyone can be in it. We can do revenue sharing. We can all brand together. We can all be Division I together. We can all have a big tent."

Delaney's comments are based upon the expanded master plan which entails 3 to 5 additional conferences above and beyond the p5. The addition of those conferences would effectively raise their numbers from 68 (+/-) to something in excess of 100. The likes of Cincinnati, UConn and Memphis would be included in an effort to strengthen their position. Delaney isn't exactly thinking before speaking since the Big 10 is currently struggling with fulfilling its obligation to the 8 bowl games they purchased. This isn't the first time he's found it necessary to back-pedal from earlier statements.

All of the AAC would make it.

(11-06-2013 01:00 AM)BigHouston Wrote:  Obsolutely... The biggest failure however is the conference pathetic insulting tv distributions $$$... If Aresco is unable to correct this and soon, the AAC will not only lose programs, but devalue the strength and potential of the AAC.

Absolutely!

Since money is the driving force in college football, Aresco has to fix the TV $$ inequity ASAP!

It's up to the schools to continue to improve, get ranked, win bowl games, go deep in the NCAA BB tourney and win championships in the other olympic sports so that Aresco can negotiate a better deal.

(11-06-2013 09:47 PM)ecumbh1999 Wrote:  

(11-06-2013 08:42 PM)shafted1 Wrote:  

(11-06-2013 08:16 PM)BIgCatonProwl Wrote:  Is this the reason why you hear new verbage never heard before from Delaney, about wanting a big tent? "We can be in a big tent if we can get the appropriate matter of political redistribution. We can have an (NCAA men's basketball) tournament, everyone can be in it. We can do revenue sharing. We can all brand together. We can all be Division I together. We can all have a big tent."

Delaney's comments are based upon the expanded master plan which entails 3 to 5 additional conferences above and beyond the p5. The addition of those conferences would effectively raise their numbers from 68 (+/-) to something in excess of 100. The likes of Cincinnati, UConn and Memphis would be included in an effort to strengthen their position. Delaney isn't exactly thinking before speaking since the Big 10 is currently struggling with fulfilling its obligation to the 8 bowl games they purchased. This isn't the first time he's found it necessary to back-pedal from earlier statements.

All of the AAC would make it.

So your saying the P5 could become the P8 or P10? Which means there will be continued interconference football games with the G5 who will now be the P8 or P10, based on your statement...I think??? My head hurts...I need a aspirin!

(11-07-2013 10:21 AM)BIgCatonProwl Wrote:  

(11-06-2013 09:47 PM)ecumbh1999 Wrote:  

(11-06-2013 08:42 PM)shafted1 Wrote:  

(11-06-2013 08:16 PM)BIgCatonProwl Wrote:  Is this the reason why you hear new verbage never heard before from Delaney, about wanting a big tent? "We can be in a big tent if we can get the appropriate matter of political redistribution. We can have an (NCAA men's basketball) tournament, everyone can be in it. We can do revenue sharing. We can all brand together. We can all be Division I together. We can all have a big tent."

Delaney's comments are based upon the expanded master plan which entails 3 to 5 additional conferences above and beyond the p5. The addition of those conferences would effectively raise their numbers from 68 (+/-) to something in excess of 100. The likes of Cincinnati, UConn and Memphis would be included in an effort to strengthen their position. Delaney isn't exactly thinking before speaking since the Big 10 is currently struggling with fulfilling its obligation to the 8 bowl games they purchased. This isn't the first time he's found it necessary to back-pedal from earlier statements.

All of the AAC would make it.

So your saying the P5 could become the P8 or P10? Which means there will be continued interconference football games with the G5 who will now be the P8 or P10, based on your statement...I think??? My head hurts...I need a aspirin!

No, it would be pretty much what it is now. Just with some of that fat trimmed out of the bottom three conferences, AAC and MWC would likely remain unchanged.

(11-07-2013 10:40 AM)Lord2FLI Wrote:  

(11-07-2013 10:21 AM)BIgCatonProwl Wrote:  

(11-06-2013 09:47 PM)ecumbh1999 Wrote:  

(11-06-2013 08:42 PM)shafted1 Wrote:  

(11-06-2013 08:16 PM)BIgCatonProwl Wrote:  Is this the reason why you hear new verbage never heard before from Delaney, about wanting a big tent? "We can be in a big tent if we can get the appropriate matter of political redistribution. We can have an (NCAA men's basketball) tournament, everyone can be in it. We can do revenue sharing. We can all brand together. We can all be Division I together. We can all have a big tent."

Delaney's comments are based upon the expanded master plan which entails 3 to 5 additional conferences above and beyond the p5. The addition of those conferences would effectively raise their numbers from 68 (+/-) to something in excess of 100. The likes of Cincinnati, UConn and Memphis would be included in an effort to strengthen their position. Delaney isn't exactly thinking before speaking since the Big 10 is currently struggling with fulfilling its obligation to the 8 bowl games they purchased. This isn't the first time he's found it necessary to back-pedal from earlier statements.

All of the AAC would make it.

So your saying the P5 could become the P8 or P10? Which means there will be continued interconference football games with the G5 who will now be the P8 or P10, based on your statement...I think??? My head hurts...I need a aspirin!

No, it would be pretty much what it is now. Just with some of that fat trimmed out of the bottom three conferences, AAC and MWC would likely remain unchanged.

I think cutting out the bottom of the FBS and going to less than 100 isn't a terrible idea. I'm sure the bottom 25 would disagree though.

(11-07-2013 10:56 AM)MagicKnightmare Wrote:  

(11-07-2013 10:40 AM)Lord2FLI Wrote:  

(11-07-2013 10:21 AM)BIgCatonProwl Wrote:  

(11-06-2013 09:47 PM)ecumbh1999 Wrote:  

(11-06-2013 08:42 PM)shafted1 Wrote:  Delaney's comments are based upon the expanded master plan which entails 3 to 5 additional conferences above and beyond the p5. The addition of those conferences would effectively raise their numbers from 68 (+/-) to something in excess of 100. The likes of Cincinnati, UConn and Memphis would be included in an effort to strengthen their position. Delaney isn't exactly thinking before speaking since the Big 10 is currently struggling with fulfilling its obligation to the 8 bowl games they purchased. This isn't the first time he's found it necessary to back-pedal from earlier statements.

All of the AAC would make it.

So your saying the P5 could become the P8 or P10? Which means there will be continued interconference football games with the G5 who will now be the P8 or P10, based on your statement...I think??? My head hurts...I need a aspirin!

No, it would be pretty much what it is now. Just with some of that fat trimmed out of the bottom three conferences, AAC and MWC would likely remain unchanged.

I think cutting out the bottom of the FBS and going to less than 100 isn't a terrible idea. I'm sure the bottom 25 would disagree though.

Two thoughts...

First, it depends ***how*** you measure the "Bottom 25". By budget? By "ratings"? If you're talking some sort of contraction, you're going to have some objective standard by which you measure out who's above and who's below the proverbial "Mendoza" line.

My point here is that I'm not really sure "all of the AAC" makes it, depending upon the standard nor am I sure that "none" of the SBC, MAC, or CUSA make it. So for example, "what if" the standard that gets set eliminates Temple but allows Marshall from CUSA in? Does the American drop and add? Just a question...

Second, it still leaves the inequality in FBS unaddressed and creates a new permanent underclass of programs that are trying to compete but with none of the resources that allow them to compete. Or in other words, all that happens is that the "P-5" conferences just create a set of "Washington Generals" to their Globetrotters who they can beat the snot out of while showing off.

(11-07-2013 11:19 AM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  

(11-07-2013 10:56 AM)MagicKnightmare Wrote:  

(11-07-2013 10:40 AM)Lord2FLI Wrote:  

(11-07-2013 10:21 AM)BIgCatonProwl Wrote:  

(11-06-2013 09:47 PM)ecumbh1999 Wrote:  All of the AAC would make it.

So your saying the P5 could become the P8 or P10? Which means there will be continued interconference football games with the G5 who will now be the P8 or P10, based on your statement...I think??? My head hurts...I need a aspirin!

No, it would be pretty much what it is now. Just with some of that fat trimmed out of the bottom three conferences, AAC and MWC would likely remain unchanged.

I think cutting out the bottom of the FBS and going to less than 100 isn't a terrible idea. I'm sure the bottom 25 would disagree though.

Two thoughts...

First, it depends ***how*** you measure the "Bottom 25". By budget? By "ratings"? If you're talking some sort of contraction, you're going to have some objective standard by which you measure out who's above and who's below the proverbial "Mendoza" line.

My point here is that I'm not really sure "all of the AAC" makes it, depending upon the standard nor am I sure that "none" of the SBC, MAC, or CUSA make it. So for example, "what if" the standard that gets set eliminates Temple but allows Marshall from CUSA in? Does the American drop and add? Just a question...

Second, it still leaves the inequality in FBS unaddressed and creates a new permanent underclass of programs that are trying to compete but with none of the resources that allow them to compete. Or in other words, all that happens is that the "P-5" conferences just create a set of "Washington Generals" to their Globetrotters who they can beat the snot out of while showing off.

I think all of the AAC should.

(11-07-2013 11:19 AM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  

(11-07-2013 10:56 AM)MagicKnightmare Wrote:  

(11-07-2013 10:40 AM)Lord2FLI Wrote:  

(11-07-2013 10:21 AM)BIgCatonProwl Wrote:  

(11-06-2013 09:47 PM)ecumbh1999 Wrote:  All of the AAC would make it.

So your saying the P5 could become the P8 or P10? Which means there will be continued interconference football games with the G5 who will now be the P8 or P10, based on your statement...I think??? My head hurts...I need a aspirin!

No, it would be pretty much what it is now. Just with some of that fat trimmed out of the bottom three conferences, AAC and MWC would likely remain unchanged.

I think cutting out the bottom of the FBS and going to less than 100 isn't a terrible idea. I'm sure the bottom 25 would disagree though.

Two thoughts...

First, it depends ***how*** you measure the "Bottom 25". By budget? By "ratings"? If you're talking some sort of contraction, you're going to have some objective standard by which you measure out who's above and who's below the proverbial "Mendoza" line.

My point here is that I'm not really sure "all of the AAC" makes it, depending upon the standard nor am I sure that "none" of the SBC, MAC, or CUSA make it. So for example, "what if" the standard that gets set eliminates Temple but allows Marshall from CUSA in? Does the American drop and add? Just a question...

Second, it still leaves the inequality in FBS unaddressed and creates a new permanent underclass of programs that are trying to compete but with none of the resources that allow them to compete. Or in other words, all that happens is that the "P-5" conferences just create a set of "Washington Generals" to their Globetrotters who they can beat the snot out of while showing off.

It could be a budget tie-in, though I would not expect a mandated Mendoza, more a long the lines of minimum requirements that will have a hefty pricetag that the directional Michigan's of the world can't afford. Another approach could be to adjust the minimum attendance requirements so that they aren't as lax as they are today (and then enforce them). Ratings, however, would never fly in court, they are subjective opinions at the end of the day. Marshall won't leapfrog Temple, however, I would expect Marshall and much of C-USA to remain in the top division, whatever minimums they throw out there, most of those schools will be able to meet them.

Also, the Cartel isn't looking at creating an equal playing field, never allow yourself to believe that lie. They want the lower conferences to beat on so their own conferences appear better than they are. They'll do minimums so they don't get drawn into court and while we can meet those minimums, we can't outspend them on the luxuries, which will ultimately keep us as a second class.

So they will make a deicison come in Jan. meeting, who's in that 100 or so schools "the big tent Delany referred to" ... other words who's in and who's out and there going to slam the door shut and lock it forever? I rather be in that tent, than not.

(11-07-2013 02:24 PM)BIgCatonProwl Wrote:  So they will make a deicison come in Jan. meeting, who's in that 100 or so schools "the big tent Delany referred to" ... other words who's in and who's out and there going to slam the door shut and lock it forever? I rather be in that tent, than not.

Under the "big tent" concept---nobody is out. Instead the big schools will get to pass rules that will allow them to utilize their huge money advantage. They will be able to hire coaches who do nothing but recruit, pay stipends, contact younger players, etc....

If the smaller schools want to do these things---they can---if they can afford to. After a bit, they may tire of competing at a massive disadvantage and decide to drop down a level--otherwise, they are free to stay and tilt at windmills. Nobody will kick them out.

(11-06-2013 08:15 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-06-2013 01:22 AM)The Turk Wrote:  

(11-06-2013 01:00 AM)BigHouston Wrote:  Obsolutely... The biggest failure however is the conference pathetic insulting tv distributions $$$... If Aresco is unable to correct this and soon, the AAC will not only lose programs, but devalue the strength and potential of the AAC.

that was done for exposure though. you gave up a million or two per team for ESPN exposure...

Some say this, but nobody has ever shown how we actually "traded off" money for exposure, i.e., that there actually was a deal on the table from NBC or ESPN that would have paid say $3m per school but for less time on the networks.

Look, I think the BE is top to bottom a superior bball league to the ACC, but there are still a bunch of top tier bball matchups in the AAC. Perhaps not as many mid tier games, or lower tier games, but coupled with the fact that there are a few teams in the AAC that don't suck (don't take this the wrong way) on the gridiron, and the fact that the league is getting better than expected exposure in both sports, odds are that that's the tradeoff that happened.

(11-06-2013 09:47 PM)ecumbh1999 Wrote:  

(11-06-2013 08:42 PM)shafted1 Wrote:  

(11-06-2013 08:16 PM)BIgCatonProwl Wrote:  Is this the reason why you hear new verbage never heard before from Delaney, about wanting a big tent? "We can be in a big tent if we can get the appropriate matter of political redistribution. We can have an (NCAA men's basketball) tournament, everyone can be in it. We can do revenue sharing. We can all brand together. We can all be Division I together. We can all have a big tent."

Delaney's comments are based upon the expanded master plan which entails 3 to 5 additional conferences above and beyond the p5. The addition of those conferences would effectively raise their numbers from 68 (+/-) to something in excess of 100. The likes of Cincinnati, UConn and Memphis would be included in an effort to strengthen their position. Delaney isn't exactly thinking before speaking since the Big 10 is currently struggling with fulfilling its obligation to the 8 bowl games they purchased. This isn't the first time he's found it necessary to back-pedal from earlier statements.

All of the AAC would make it.

Agreed. I wasn't implying anyone from the AAC wouldn't be included. I simply named off a few examples. The member schools of the MWC would make it as well. That being said, I don't consider inclusion as a good thing necessarily.

Delaney and his cronies want money but they really want to set themselves apart as elitists. The Big 10 cannot remain 'elite' if the suggested Div IV becomes reality; same is true for the other 4 power conferences. The bottom half of those conferences would effectively become 'bottom feeders' as they are labeled since someone has to lose in every game. If not the bottom half of the p5, then whom?

In Div I, even the bottom feeders of the p5 enjoy elite status, albeit through association. Based upon the 68(+/-) members of the p5, they need to double their membership if they intend to retain elite status for their bottom feeders. Someone has to lose games to the p5! The addition of 3 to 5 G5 conferences roughly doubles membership and effectively provides the necessary losers for their current members.

That's inclusion but... at what costs?

(11-06-2013 01:13 PM)BIgCatonProwl Wrote:  I believe there is no way the P5 are going to start there own BB tournament, there is way too much to lose money wise for them. Espn and the other networks would try with all there power to prevent that from happening. P5 posturing by, as usual.

Agreed. A BB tournament that includes every team loses its appeal since there isn't any 'qualifying' taking place. Under the original p5 plan, they would only have 34 games in the first round. There's no way a tournament that small could ever hope to produce revenues comparable to today's March Madness.

Likewise, they couldn't compete with the Div I tournament. There are too many good teams outside the p5. A 'new' Div I tourney would suffer initially but would recover within 3 to 5 years at most. More importantly, we would have a new crop of blue bloods that would develop during that time frame. I'm not so sure folks would object! A new tourney with new names at the top would certainly be refreshing to say the least.

(11-07-2013 10:21 AM)BIgCatonProwl Wrote:  

(11-06-2013 09:47 PM)ecumbh1999 Wrote:  

(11-06-2013 08:42 PM)shafted1 Wrote:  

(11-06-2013 08:16 PM)BIgCatonProwl Wrote:  Is this the reason why you hear new verbage never heard before from Delaney, about wanting a big tent? "We can be in a big tent if we can get the appropriate matter of political redistribution. We can have an (NCAA men's basketball) tournament, everyone can be in it. We can do revenue sharing. We can all brand together. We can all be Division I together. We can all have a big tent."

Delaney's comments are based upon the expanded master plan which entails 3 to 5 additional conferences above and beyond the p5. The addition of those conferences would effectively raise their numbers from 68 (+/-) to something in excess of 100. The likes of Cincinnati, UConn and Memphis would be included in an effort to strengthen their position. Delaney isn't exactly thinking before speaking since the Big 10 is currently struggling with fulfilling its obligation to the 8 bowl games they purchased. This isn't the first time he's found it necessary to back-pedal from earlier statements.

All of the AAC would make it.

So your saying the P5 could become the P8 or P10? Which means there will be continued interconference football games with the G5 who will now be the P8 or P10, based on your statement...I think??? My head hurts...I need a aspirin!

Yes. It would be the new Div IV rather than p8 or p10 though. The current p5 does not consist of the entire FBS which would be necessary to make their master plan work successfully. In simpler terms, every football game ends with a winner and a loser. The entire p5 cannot remain elite if they restrict their games to 'members only.' They must have at least an equal number of teams in their proposed Div IV to lose those games. The addition of 3 to 5 conferences gives them the losers necessary to maintain the elite status of their entire conference. That takes care of the football side of things.

The addition of 3 to 5 conferences allows the p5 to incorporate the vast majority of top tier teams in basketball as well. If they intend to compete with Div I's March Madness, they need to recruit those non-p5 top tier teams to their side. The fewer 'good' teams left in Div I, the better!

(11-07-2013 11:19 AM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  Two thoughts...

First, it depends ***how*** you measure the "Bottom 25". By budget? By "ratings"? If you're talking some sort of contraction, you're going to have some objective standard by which you measure out who's above and who's below the proverbial "Mendoza" line.

My point here is that I'm not really sure "all of the AAC" makes it, depending upon the standard nor am I sure that "none" of the SBC, MAC, or CUSA make it. So for example, "what if" the standard that gets set eliminates Temple but allows Marshall from CUSA in? Does the American drop and add? Just a question...

Second, it still leaves the inequality in FBS unaddressed and creates a new permanent underclass of programs that are trying to compete but with none of the resources that allow them to compete. Or in other words, all that happens is that the "P-5" conferences just create a set of "Washington Generals" to their Globetrotters who they can beat the snot out of while showing off.

I'm afraid your analogy is far more accurate than you realize. The Globetrotters can't succeed without the Washington Generals. The P5 cannot succeed without having someone to take the losses. They can't keep it amongst themselves without forcing the bottom half of their respective conferences to fall into the 'bottom feeders' category.

This stuff is better than reading and trying to figure out a Sherlock Holme's murder mystery novel. Only thing is in this case, we know who did it or should I say we know who's trying to do it.