🏈 Offensive game plan for Utah?

[TerryP]

I don't need to read the section on how the basketball funds are distributed. I know how that's handled.

I don't want the NCAA involved. I don't want them having any say on how bowl money is distributed.

I've never discounted your invitation to a BCS bowl. I think you deserve it.

Ball State? The team that couldn't handle Buffalo?

Troy? :roll: But hey, they did kill Alcorn State!

Tulsa? A team that couldn't handle Arkansas who isn't even bowl eligible?

Give me a freakin' break if you think they deserve to be part of this picture.

 

[Sixpack]

I don't need to read the section on how the basketball funds are distributed. I know how that's handled.

I don't want the NCAA involved. I don't want them having any say on how bowl money is distributed.

I've never discounted your invitation to a BCS bowl. I think you deserve it.

Ball State? The team that couldn't handle Buffalo?

Troy? :roll: But hey, they did kill Alcorn State!

Tulsa? A team that couldn't handle Arkansas who isn't even bowl eligible?

Give me a freakin' break if you think they deserve to be part of this picture.

I included them at face value to give high rated teams a break in the first game and to give all conferences a chance. What they will make from a unit isn't much different than what they will take make this year. Financially there really isn't much difference.

Personally I think the higher rated teams should have an easier game and you might as well make the smaller leagues earn their money.

The primary reason I include all FBS leagues, we don't get the same problem we currently have with the BCS, a monopoly.

Obviously Buffalo would subplant Ball St., Florida and Bama would switch places and some other changes would have happened. You get essenatially a rest game, something to get ready for the next weeks game and a reward for a job well done. Its no different than a revenue game against W. Kentucky.

You state you don't want the NCAA involved and I'd love to know why not. If the schools voted on the same distribution system as BBall how would that give them anymore power than they already have? The schools have the power to make the rules, not the NCAA itself. You are actually taking the power from the bowls and giving it back to the schools.

How much do the Bowls make off of the participating schools. If they are paying out $34 million per contest what's their take...20, 30 or even 50% above what they pay out. Why should these bowls make the money that could be going to our schools.

 

[TerryP]

You state you don't want the NCAA involved and I'd love to know why not. If the schools voted on the same distribution system as BBall how would that give them anymore power than they already have? The schools have the power to make the rules, not the NCAA itself. You are actually taking the power from the bowls and giving it back to the schools.

How much do the Bowls make off of the participating schools. If they are paying out $34 million per contest what's their take...20, 30 or even 50% above what they pay out. Why should these bowls make the money that could be going to our schools.

I've said why I don't want the NCAA involved. It's because our school and the SEC wouldn't make as much money then as we do now. Call it selfish, I don't have a problem with that. Quite frankly, I think a good half of the teams in the FBS don't belong there in the first place.

FWIW, going back to something you posted earlier, Baylor was a bad example. I don't know if you realize it or not, but the revenue sharing for the Big 12 is different than that of the SEC. Teams that are on TV more in the Big 12 get more of the pie. The SEC divides it's revenue share evenly.

I don't know how much profit the individual bowl games end up with. It's something I've never looked at...

 

[Guest]

Quite frankly, I think a good half of the teams in the FBS don't belong there in the first place.

With this point I agree whole heartedly.


As for a playoff in CFB, the only thing I'd like to chanage is add the Plus 1 system. This I'd like to see. At most, an 8 team playoff. Anyhting more than 8 teams water down the regular season.

I do hate the BCS. My choice is to go to a Plus one, 8 team play off, or go back to the old Bowl system.

At least in the old bowl system, more than just the one game had meaning. As it stands now, unless your team is in the game, the only game that means anything is the NC game.

 

[Sixpack]

You state you don't want the NCAA involved and I'd love to know why not. If the schools voted on the same distribution system as BBall how would that give them anymore power than they already have? The schools have the power to make the rules, not the NCAA itself. You are actually taking the power from the bowls and giving it back to the schools.

How much do the Bowls make off of the participating schools. If they are paying out $34 million per contest what's their take...20, 30 or even 50% above what they pay out. Why should these bowls make the money that could be going to our schools.

I've said why I don't want the NCAA involved. It's because our school and the SEC wouldn't make as much money then as we do now. Call it selfish, I don't have a problem with that. Quite frankly, I think a good half of the teams in the FBS don't belong there in the first place.

FWIW, going back to something you posted earlier, Baylor was a bad example. I don't know if you realize it or not, but the revenue sharing for the Big 12 is different than that of the SEC. Teams that are on TV more in the Big 12 get more of the pie. The SEC divides it's revenue share evenly.

I don't know how much profit the individual bowl games end up with. It's something I've never looked at...

I guess that is where we disagree, I think the SEC would make more than you currently do with the BCS setup. I've also read some studies saying the samething, but I can't find them right now.

Since you didn't like Baylor, how about Vandy...

How a league distributes the revenue is determined by its members.

Simply by the numbers...the new BCS contract through 2013 is worth ~$100 Million/year for 4 games. The Rose pays a bit more at $30 million. So each game is worth roughly ~$26 each and there are 7 games of that quality and 8 a bit less, but still respectable, maybe worth ~10-15 each on average, I'll use $10 million or 1/3 value. Total value around ~$300 million. Add in additional revenue such as sales, concessions etc... the BCS bowls currently have to make up a difference around 8 million/game. If the playoff could get a revenue stream $300 million/year of profit unit payouts would be ~$10 million each.

If and SEC team could play in 2/3 games they'd earn 20-30 million for their league. Much more than they currently make with the BCS.

 

[TerryP]

I guess that is where we disagree, I think the SEC would make more than you currently do with the BCS setup. I've also read some studies saying the samething, but I can't find them right now.

Since you didn't like Baylor, how about Vandy...

How a league distributes the revenue is determined by its members.

Simply by the numbers...the new BCS contract through 2013 is worth ~$100 Million/year for 4 games. The Rose pays a bit more at $30 million. So each game is worth roughly ~$26 each and there are 7 games of that quality and 8 a bit less, but still respectable, maybe worth ~10-15 each on average, I'll use $10 million or 1/3 value. Total value around ~$300 million. Add in additional revenue such as sales, concessions etc... the BCS bowls currently have to make up a difference around 8 million/game. If the playoff could get a revenue stream $300 million/year of profit unit payouts would be ~$10 million each.

If and SEC team could play in 2/3 games they'd earn 20-30 million for their league. Much more than they currently make with the BCS.

Several comments here...

I almost included Vandy in an earlier response (actually did, but deleted it.) This is the first year Vandy is bowling and congrats to them for making that plateau. While Vandy can be looked at as a team that doesn't effect the BCS games, they do contribute in football revenue to the conference. Add to that, their Athletic Department isn't operating in the red like a lot of the other FBS teams are. (one main reason for that is due to the fact they've "streamlined" their programs and literally operate without an official Athletic Department.)

As to your numbers on payouts.

This year, in BCS games alone, the SEC will make 34 million. Last year, combining bowl payouts and TV revenue agreements the payout was well over 10 million a team. That's well over 10 million per team, all 12 teams in the SEC.

Sales/concessions aren't part of the payout for the teams. At least, it wasn't the last time I looked at how the money was being disbursed from a BCS game. (granted, that was several years ago so that may have changed. But, I doubt it. I firmly suspect that $$ stays with the cities and individual bowl groups)

I'm reminded of a phrase, "give them an inch and they'll try to take a mile."

I see the NCAA in the very same light.

We are going to look at this differently. There is no doubt because our conferences, when it comes to revenue, are worlds apart. Worlds.

All the games included, and this is a down year for SEC going to bowl games, we are looking at bringing in 49.95MM.

Using your numbers for BCS games alone. We lose money.

My stance against the playoff and the reasons behind why aren't something arbitrarily thought up. They come from having some pretty in depth discussions with guys that work with TV contracts in our school administration and they are echoed by those in the SEC offices as well.

Bottom line. Like I've said.

I don't want any part of a playoff where the NCAA gets involved in the monetary aspect.

If schools want more money, raise it. That's how Alabama is paying for our stadium expansions and upgrades.

If they want a shot at a BCS game, prove they deserve it by what they do on the field of play. Utah did this year. Seems to me you should be more than happy with it.

 

[Sixpack]

I guess that is where we disagree, I think the SEC would make more than you currently do with the BCS setup. I've also read some studies saying the samething, but I can't find them right now.

Since you didn't like Baylor, how about Vandy...

How a league distributes the revenue is determined by its members.

Simply by the numbers...the new BCS contract through 2013 is worth ~$100 Million/year for 4 games. The Rose pays a bit more at $30 million. So each game is worth roughly ~$26 each and there are 7 games of that quality and 8 a bit less, but still respectable, maybe worth ~10-15 each on average, I'll use $10 million or 1/3 value. Total value around ~$300 million. Add in additional revenue such as sales, concessions etc... the BCS bowls currently have to make up a difference around 8 million/game. If the playoff could get a revenue stream $300 million/year of profit unit payouts would be ~$10 million each.

If and SEC team could play in 2/3 games they'd earn 20-30 million for their league. Much more than they currently make with the BCS.

Several comments here...

I almost included Vandy in an earlier response (actually did, but deleted it.) This is the first year Vandy is bowling and congrats to them for making that plateau. While Vandy can be looked at as a team that doesn't effect the BCS games, they do contribute in football revenue to the conference. Add to that, their Athletic Department isn't operating in the red like a lot of the other FBS teams are. (one main reason for that is due to the fact they've "streamlined" their programs and literally operate without an official Athletic Department.)

As to your numbers on payouts.

This year, in BCS games alone, the SEC will make 34 million. Last year, combining bowl payouts and TV revenue agreements the payout was well over 10 million a team. That's well over 10 million per team, all 12 teams in the SEC.

Sales/concessions aren't part of the payout for the teams. At least, it wasn't the last time I looked at how the money was being disbursed from a BCS game. (granted, that was several years ago so that may have changed. But, I doubt it. I firmly suspect that $$ stays with the cities and individual bowl groups)

I'm reminded of a phrase, "give them an inch and they'll try to take a mile."

I see the NCAA in the very same light.

We are going to look at this differently. There is no doubt because our conferences, when it comes to revenue, are worlds apart. Worlds.

All the games included, and this is a down year for SEC going to bowl games, we are looking at bringing in 49.95MM.

Using your numbers for BCS games alone. We lose money.

My stance against the playoff and the reasons behind why aren't something arbitrarily thought up. They come from having some pretty in depth discussions with guys that work with TV contracts in our school administration and they are echoed by those in the SEC offices as well.

Bottom line. Like I've said.

I don't want any part of a playoff where the NCAA gets involved in the monetary aspect.

If schools want more money, raise it. That's how Alabama is paying for our stadium expansions and upgrades.

If they want a shot at a BCS game, prove they deserve it by what they do on the field of play. Utah did this year. Seems to me you should be more than happy with it.

A couple corrections, the SEC will not make $34 million from the BCS games this year. They will make 17+4.5 = $21.5 million. Per BCS rules since the SEC has 2 teams the second is paid only 4.5

The reason I mentioned concessions and other factors is the simply the fact that the TV contract doesn't cover the cost of the BCS payouts. So the the BCS is only paying out 17*7+4.5*3= 132.5 Million. They make around $100 million on the TV contracts, the difference is made up somewhere.

Also I didn't say cancel the other bowls, so the SEC would still earn that money.

You tell the non-BCS teams to prove it on the field, then you schedule the VAST majority of your non-conf games at home, giving you a substantial advantage.

You tell the non-BCS to prove it on the field, but still let a 9-4 VT play in a BCS game.

The money isn't what I'm complaining about, you have, but since you brought it up doesn't our country have a history of breaking up monopolies? That is exactly what the BCS is.

The only reason you don't want to change it is because you are already part of it.

Now granted there are some teams that have no business being in the FBS, but if they weren't there Bama and a number of other BCS teams would have to play a real non-conference schedule. You wouldn't get 8/9 home games.

Why should we have to prove it more than a Vandy or Duke or the many other BCS teams who've never even SNIFFED a BCS bid let alone win their conference. They haven't proved anything.

Why should I be happy with a system that throws me a bone, pats me on the head, then chains me up on the outside?

If you were outside the BCS, you'd feel the same way.

 

[Guest]

I guess that is where we disagree, I think the SEC would make more than you currently do with the BCS setup. I've also read some studies saying the samething, but I can't find them right now.

Since you didn't like Baylor, how about Vandy...

How a league distributes the revenue is determined by its members.

Simply by the numbers...the new BCS contract through 2013 is worth ~$100 Million/year for 4 games. The Rose pays a bit more at $30 million. So each game is worth roughly ~$26 each and there are 7 games of that quality and 8 a bit less, but still respectable, maybe worth ~10-15 each on average, I'll use $10 million or 1/3 value. Total value around ~$300 million. Add in additional revenue such as sales, concessions etc... the BCS bowls currently have to make up a difference around 8 million/game. If the playoff could get a revenue stream $300 million/year of profit unit payouts would be ~$10 million each.

If and SEC team could play in 2/3 games they'd earn 20-30 million for their league. Much more than they currently make with the BCS.

Several comments here...

I almost included Vandy in an earlier response (actually did, but deleted it.) This is the first year Vandy is bowling and congrats to them for making that plateau. While Vandy can be looked at as a team that doesn't effect the BCS games, they do contribute in football revenue to the conference. Add to that, their Athletic Department isn't operating in the red like a lot of the other FBS teams are. (one main reason for that is due to the fact they've "streamlined" their programs and literally operate without an official Athletic Department.)

As to your numbers on payouts.

This year, in BCS games alone, the SEC will make 34 million. Last year, combining bowl payouts and TV revenue agreements the payout was well over 10 million a team. That's well over 10 million per team, all 12 teams in the SEC.

Sales/concessions aren't part of the payout for the teams. At least, it wasn't the last time I looked at how the money was being disbursed from a BCS game. (granted, that was several years ago so that may have changed. But, I doubt it. I firmly suspect that $$ stays with the cities and individual bowl groups)

I'm reminded of a phrase, "give them an inch and they'll try to take a mile."

I see the NCAA in the very same light.

We are going to look at this differently. There is no doubt because our conferences, when it comes to revenue, are worlds apart. Worlds.

All the games included, and this is a down year for SEC going to bowl games, we are looking at bringing in 49.95MM.

Using your numbers for BCS games alone. We lose money.

My stance against the playoff and the reasons behind why aren't something arbitrarily thought up. They come from having some pretty in depth discussions with guys that work with TV contracts in our school administration and they are echoed by those in the SEC offices as well.

Bottom line. Like I've said.

I don't want any part of a playoff where the NCAA gets involved in the monetary aspect.

If schools want more money, raise it. That's how Alabama is paying for our stadium expansions and upgrades.

If they want a shot at a BCS game, prove they deserve it by what they do on the field of play. Utah did this year. Seems to me you should be more than happy with it.

How about this...

Keep the BCS.

demolish the lesser conferences and form super-conferences with a divisional championship game and a conference championship game. 10 game conference slate + 1 non-conference game. Make conference affiliation mandatory so Notre Dame will not do their own thing.

Make 8 wins a requirement for bowling.

Watch these currently non BCS teams whine because they are sitting at home for the holidays because of losing records.

 

[lilstat]

I would love a playoff. And you guys stating that a lot of FBS teams shouldnt be their ? Then we couldnt have them lovely upsets like we do. Any team can be beaten on any given day and thats why they let them play. They may suck but there is always a good upset every year.

 

[SkinyUte]

How about this...

Keep the BCS.

demolish the lesser conferences and form super-conferences with a divisional championship game and a conference championship game. 10 game conference slate + 1 non-conference game. Make conference affiliation mandatory so Notre Dame will not do their own thing.

Make 8 wins a requirement for bowling.

I completely agree. Level the playing field and let the cream of the non-BCS crop rise if they're able to. If they can't, then it would prove you're right, but at least we'd find out who was for real or not. Personally, I think the 8-win thing should be mandatory, regardless of any changes made to the BCS.

Watch these currently non BCS teams whine because they are sitting at home for the holidays because of losing records.

OK, so maybe I don't completely agree... :wink:

 

[Crimson Hawk]

To continue even further off the reservation here, :roll: A plus one would work well this year if Bama were matched up with UTex. The winner of the UF/OU game could play the Bama UTex winner for all the marbles.