Now That The NBE Is Shutout Of The NCG...

[Bull94]

The new BE isn't shut out any more than the ACC is, based on what we know so far.

Not true unfortunately:

Q: How much will the new playoff format be worth and how much will each conference receive?

A: The current BCS model is worth about $180 million annually and estimates for the new playoff model will be at least double that -- $360 million annually. The commissioners still have to determine how that money is divided up, but this much we know: the SEC, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-12 and ACC will get the biggest shares. CBSSports.com reported Monday that the revenue split will be based on the league's past performances, specifically Top 25 finishes in the final BCS rankings since 1998, the first year of the BCS. The past participation model is one way to justify the Big Five conferences receiving the majority of the money. Other elements under consideration include market share value. Under the current system, each of the power conferences received a minimum of $22.3 million. In the new model, I wouldn't be surprised if the five power leagues receive at least $50 million annually. The other leagues -- Big East, Mountain West, Conference USA, Mid-American and Sun Belt -- will get much smaller shares than the Big Five, but more than the $2.64 million they each receive now. The Big East, which received $22.3 million in the current system, is no longer considered an elite conference and will not get the same as the Big Five leagues in the future format. However, they could get an amount much less than the Big Five, but more than the remaining non-power conferences. This is still to be determined. Also, each conference will receive additional revenue for each team it qualifies in the national semifinals.

Q: Will the "little guys" from the non-power leagues have a shot at playing in the national semifinals?

A: Sure, but any team from the Big East, Mountain West, Conference USA, etc., will have to go 12-0 or, at worst, 11-1 and hope the power leagues don't have four teams with similar records. Again, strength of schedule will be a big emphasis point with the committee, so it will boil down to how a Big East/MWC/C-USA champion, facing a much easier conference schedule than the big boys, compares with the elite teams from the power conferences.

http://www.cbssports...-playoff-format

guess how many ACC teams would have qualified in the last 10 years if we go by BCS rankings before bowls?

1

#3 v -tech 2007-2008

guess how many BE teams?

1

#3 cincy 2009-2010

this list does not include miami as they were big east members at the time.

guess how many BE members have played for the MNC in that time?

0

again doesn't include miami as a BE member.

this system is better for us. adding 2 teams gives us a better chance. how is that not obvious??

[Gismo]

The new BE isn't shut out any more than the ACC is, based on what we know so far.

Not true unfortunately:

Q: How much will the new playoff format be worth and how much will each conference receive?

A: The current BCS model is worth about $180 million annually and estimates for the new playoff model will be at least double that -- $360 million annually. The commissioners still have to determine how that money is divided up, but this much we know: the SEC, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-12 and ACC will get the biggest shares. CBSSports.com reported Monday that the revenue split will be based on the league's past performances, specifically Top 25 finishes in the final BCS rankings since 1998, the first year of the BCS. The past participation model is one way to justify the Big Five conferences receiving the majority of the money. Other elements under consideration include market share value. Under the current system, each of the power conferences received a minimum of $22.3 million. In the new model, I wouldn't be surprised if the five power leagues receive at least $50 million annually. The other leagues -- Big East, Mountain West, Conference USA, Mid-American and Sun Belt -- will get much smaller shares than the Big Five, but more than the $2.64 million they each receive now. The Big East, which received $22.3 million in the current system, is no longer considered an elite conference and will not get the same as the Big Five leagues in the future format. However, they could get an amount much less than the Big Five, but more than the remaining non-power conferences. This is still to be determined. Also, each conference will receive additional revenue for each team it qualifies in the national semifinals.

Q: Will the "little guys" from the non-power leagues have a shot at playing in the national semifinals?

A: Sure, but any team from the Big East, Mountain West, Conference USA, etc., will have to go 12-0 or, at worst, 11-1 and hope the power leagues don't have four teams with similar records. Again, strength of schedule will be a big emphasis point with the committee, so it will boil down to how a Big East/MWC/C-USA champion, facing a much easier conference schedule than the big boys, compares with the elite teams from the power conferences.

http://www.cbssports...-playoff-format

guess how many ACC teams would have qualified in the last 10 years if we go by BCS rankings before bowls?

1

#3 v -tech 2007-2008

guess how many BE teams?

1

#3 cincy 2009-2010

this list does not include miami as they were big east members at the time.

guess how many BE members have played for the MNC in that time?

0

again doesn't include miami as a BE member.

this system is better for us. adding 2 teams gives us a better chance. how is that not obvious??

While I agree the playoff is better, we'll just have to see how the money is shared in the end.

I don't understand how they claim to be doubling the value of the BCS with this change.

... The current BCS model is worth about $180 million annually and estimates for the new playoff model will be at least double that -- $360 million annually...

Where do they pull these figures from?

Also from the Q&A it sounds like possibly the Big East could be the only conference to make less money in the new system, and only because the other power conferences chose the arbitrary number five instead of six. Why not 2 or 4 or 7? It's an obvious move to damage the Big East.

[BaltoBull]

new big east is better than old big east in terms of quality football.

why is 4 playoff spots instead of 2 MNC spots worse for us?

how many BE teams played in the MNC since we joined? that's right. zero.

An undefeated Cincy would have qualified over a 1 loss UF going by BCS rankings in 2009-2010

who cares if we can't go to lousy orange bowl to play crappy acc team anymore. who cares if we don't make a gazillion dollars to pay a coach $10M per year.

if we have a decent OOC schedule and we win then we will get invited. it didn't quite work out that way for an undefeated cincy going by the old system.

I'm not trying to be difficult or ignorant, I just don't see how this the four game playoff system is any better for us. To me, it's the same dance, different song.

The way I read it, the power conferences have a virtual strangle hold on the bowls and the NCG. If the teams involved in this new system are as I understand it, chosen by a selection committee - I'm being honest here, I just don't see how anyone from the NBE realistically makes the cut. It's too easy for the selection committee to stack the deck in the power conferences favor.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but the way I see it, if the 'power conferences' do expand any further and take the remaining 'desirable' or semi-marketable programs with them (Louisville, BYU, etc.) I just don't see how a team not in the 'Big 4' SOS can measure up in the selection committee or presses eyes. Not only that, if the other conferences do expand, it will be more difficult to schedule 'quality' OOC games as there will be less room left on everyone's schedule.

The B10 & Pac12's agreement and supposedly ND's arrangement with the B12 also squeeze out the other conferences as well, IMO.

I hope I'm wrong, but I think the way things are lining up in the 'power conferences' are much worse for USF and the NBE than some of you care to admit or realize.

[Who'sYourData?]

The new BE isn't shut out any more than the ACC is, based on what we know so far.

Not true unfortunately:

Q: How much will the new playoff format be worth and how much will each conference receive?

A: The current BCS model is worth about $180 million annually and estimates for the new playoff model will be at least double that -- $360 million annually. The commissioners still have to determine how that money is divided up, but this much we know: the SEC, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-12 and ACC will get the biggest shares. CBSSports.com reported Monday that the revenue split will be based on the league's past performances, specifically Top 25 finishes in the final BCS rankings since 1998, the first year of the BCS. The past participation model is one way to justify the Big Five conferences receiving the majority of the money. Other elements under consideration include market share value. Under the current system, each of the power conferences received a minimum of $22.3 million. In the new model, I wouldn't be surprised if the five power leagues receive at least $50 million annually. The other leagues -- Big East, Mountain West, Conference USA, Mid-American and Sun Belt -- will get much smaller shares than the Big Five, but more than the $2.64 million they each receive now. The Big East, which received $22.3 million in the current system, is no longer considered an elite conference and will not get the same as the Big Five leagues in the future format. However, they could get an amount much less than the Big Five, but more than the remaining non-power conferences. This is still to be determined. Also, each conference will receive additional revenue for each team it qualifies in the national semifinals.

Q: Will the "little guys" from the non-power leagues have a shot at playing in the national semifinals?

A: Sure, but any team from the Big East, Mountain West, Conference USA, etc., will have to go 12-0 or, at worst, 11-1 and hope the power leagues don't have four teams with similar records. Again, strength of schedule will be a big emphasis point with the committee, so it will boil down to how a Big East/MWC/C-USA champion, facing a much easier conference schedule than the big boys, compares with the elite teams from the power conferences.

http://www.cbssports...-playoff-format

That is based on the faulty assumption that the ACC has performed much better than the Big East in the BCS rankings. That is untrue, even when the new BE schools replace the BE schools leaving.

It is lousy investigation and big assumptions by CBS Sports. But that is level of reporting I expect.

[Gismo]

new big east is better than old big east in terms of quality football.

why is 4 playoff spots instead of 2 MNC spots worse for us?

how many BE teams played in the MNC since we joined? that's right. zero.

An undefeated Cincy would have qualified over a 1 loss UF going by BCS rankings in 2009-2010

who cares if we can't go to lousy orange bowl to play crappy acc team anymore. who cares if we don't make a gazillion dollars to pay a coach $10M per year.

if we have a decent OOC schedule and we win then we will get invited. it didn't quite work out that way for an undefeated cincy going by the old system.

I'm not trying to be difficult or ignorant, I just don't see how this the four game playoff system is any better for us. To me, it's the same dance, different song.

The way I read it, the power conferences have a virtual strangle hold on the bowls and the NCG. If the teams involved in this new system are as I understand it, chosen by a selection committee - I'm being honest here, I just don't see how anyone from the NBE realistically makes the cut. It's too easy for the selection committee to stack the deck in the power conferences favor.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but the way I see it, if the 'power conferences' do expand any further and take the remaining 'desirable' or semi-marketable programs with them (Louisville, BYU, etc.) I just don't see how a team not in the 'Big 4' SOS can measure up in the selection committee or presses eyes. Not only that, if the other conferences do expand, it will be more difficult to schedule 'quality' OOC games as there will be less room left on everyone's schedule.

The B10 & Pac12's agreement and supposedly ND's arrangement with the B12 also squeeze out the other conferences as well, IMO.

I hope I'm wrong, but I think the way things are lining up in the 'power conferences' are much worse for USF and the NBE than some of you care to admit or realize.

It depends on who is on the committee. If every conference has equal representation on this selection committee it may not be as bad as you imagine. You raise a good point with the scheduling difficulties.

[Joe]

Will people quite saying the NBE is better than the old. It's not...this whole situation sucks.

[Who'sYourData?]

Will people quite saying the NBE is better than the old. It's not...this whole situation sucks.

Over the last several years, the NBE teams have been at least as good on the field. There are less traditional "prestige" schools. That is why we want the system to be based on on the field performance rather than names. If it is based on the field performance, we have a fighting chance.

[Joe]

Will people quite saying the NBE is better than the old. It's not...this whole situation sucks.

Over the last several years, the NBE teams have been at least as good on the field. There are less traditional "prestige" schools. That is why we want the system to be based on on the field performance rather than names. If it is based on the field performance, we have a fighting chance.

It's easy when you're playing the Rices and UTEPs of the world. Look at SMU, UCF, Temple, and Houston (w/o Keenum) have done against quality opponents. Your answer is there.

Listen we're in a MUCH better position than everyone else below us. It's the 5, then us, then the 4.

Qqluandlagainst quality opponents

[Triple B]

Will people quite saying the NBE is better than the old. It's not...this whole situation sucks.

Over the last several years, the NBE teams have been at least as good on the field. There are less traditional "prestige" schools. That is why we want the system to be based on on the field performance rather than names. If it is based on the field performance, we have a fighting chance.

While there is a chance, it's not really much of one because, if I understand correctly, while computers will still be involved in rankings so the on the field performance will have value, the 4 playing for the MNC will be chosen by a committee so good luck with that.

[BaltoBull]

Will people quite saying the NBE is better than the old. It's not...this whole situation sucks.

Over the last several years, the NBE teams have been at least as good on the field. There are less traditional "prestige" schools. That is why we want the system to be based on on the field performance rather than names. If it is based on the field performance, we have a fighting chance.

It won't be. Why do you think expansion has been driven by and involved recognizable & "name brand" schools?

Weren't the losses of Pitt and Syracuse designed by ESPN to strip the NBE of it's most prestigious and name-brand schools (albeit, basketball schools) in an attempt to weaken and ultimately, destroy the conference?

Make no mistake, conference expansion is being driven by accumulating inventory with recognizable names in large markets.

If the conferences are hell-bent on adding big-name, brand schools and their representatives will be on the selection committee, what makes you think we or any other non-brand school has a shot at the NCG?

Don't you think the networks, the advertisers as well as the bowls themselves would prefer guaranteed draws with legions of rabid fans for their televised games? Don't you think their powerful influence would be felt by the selection committee?