http://beltboard.com/?p=397

(05-28-2010 04:24 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  http://beltboard.com/?p=397

Very well researched arkstfan and very informative.

One thing I noticed though is that your entire thesis boils down to giving the non-AQ's an extra 5% (from 9% to 14%) of the BCS revenue. However, you don't explain why the non-AQ's deserve 5%. Is this just a type of extortion to keep us from suing? A better option might be to increase the amount of money each BCS representative sends back to their home conference (with no limit on the number of qualifiers a conference can send) and then the remaing pool of BCS dollars would be divided evenly among the 11 BCS conferences.

I mean there would be no legal haggeling once this agreement were made. However, if the AQ's agree on 5% now, what's to prevent us from going after another 5% in a few years? and so and so on, without ever reaching a resolution.

This, in the end, is what it all comes down to; FAIR access to BCS dollars. Again, the AQ's know this may all be moot once realignment occurs.

I'm waiting for the cliff notes version. :microwave:

No, the current agreement says 9% unless a team qualifies, then it becomes 18%. A team has qualified every year since then. So I split the baby at 14% to keep the hush money roughly equal.

(05-28-2010 09:24 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  No, the current agreement says 9% unless a team qualifies, then it becomes 18%. A team has qualified every year since then. So I split the baby at 14% to keep the hush money roughly equal.

I say it's time to go before congress and end the monopoly. The BCS should be not exempt!

(05-28-2010 04:24 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  http://beltboard.com/?p=397

Is this a change in your view? Previously, IIRC, you haven't given legal arguments against the BC$ much credence. Or maybe I haven't been paying that much attention lately.

(05-28-2010 04:24 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  http://beltboard.com/?p=397

Your copy editor says: "FBS" at the bottom run-down should be "FCS".

that's the biggest teal I ever deared.

(05-28-2010 03:37 PM)SpaceRaider Wrote:  

(05-28-2010 04:24 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  http://beltboard.com/?p=397

Is this a change in your view? Previously, IIRC, you haven't given legal arguments against the BC$ much credence. Or maybe I haven't been paying that much attention lately.

I've never contemplated the fact that the BCS violates anti-trust as it applies to the six AQ leagues.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
For the sake of discussion.... lets assume the MWC adds
Boise State and become the 7th AQ conference. That leaves
four Non AQs. Do these four continue to get nine million
per year---and do they get to divide the money among four
conferences now. Under this setup the MWC becoming the 7th
AQ conference would be a benefit to the remaining four.....

however, it might now be that no Non AQ team would qualify
for a BCS bowl----hence the Non AQs could actually lose
money, if the MWC gains AQ status ? Unless I'm missing
something ?

It seems to me that if the remaining Non AQs fail to put a team
in a BCS bowl----the BCS payout would actually remain the same,
the MWC gets to keep the entire 18 million, instead of sharing
half of it with the Non AQs. If thats correct---then only the
Non AQs stand to lose money, unless they can produce a BCS
bowl team each year....

(05-29-2010 05:48 PM)paco Wrote:  +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
For the sake of discussion.... lets assume the MWC adds
Boise State and become the 7th AQ conference. That leaves
four Non AQs. Do these four continue to get nine million
per year---and do they get to divide the money among four
conferences now. Under this setup the MWC becoming the 7th
AQ conference would be a benefit to the remaining four.....

however, it might now be that no Non AQ team would qualify
for a BCS bowl----hence the Non AQs could actually lose
money, if the MWC gains AQ status ? Unless I'm missing
something ?

It seems to me that if the remaining Non AQs fail to put a team
in a BCS bowl----the BCS payout would actually remain the same,
the MWC gets to keep the entire 18 million, instead of sharing
half of it with the Non AQs. If thats correct---then only the
Non AQs stand to lose money, unless they can produce a BCS
bowl team each year....

Under the current agreement the non-AQ are guaranteed 9% no matter how many there are, future agreements are always up for negotiation.