Why don't we all just go by the by-laws we all agreed to when we joined?

(12-30-2013 02:58 PM)Knights_of_UCF Wrote:  Does anyone actually know the revenue payout? I'm pretty sure the conference does cover some or all of the expenses for a bowl team. Seems like bianchi trolled a lot of people again with this article.

Yes. The BCS team gets a larger share for expenses. It probably is not enough when the teams head to a bowl like the Fiesta but they do get more than the schools going to the Belk,Champs etc. the problem lies in having to cover the tickets not sold and in a bowl that is far away like the Fiesta that's a problem

(12-30-2013 01:43 PM)Knights_of_UCF Wrote:  Bowl teams should get a bigger cut. Also lol at bianchi being a ucf surrogate. Don't read many of his columns do you OP?

Bowl teams DO get a bigger cut. And the BCS teams get the biggest cut. But you still lose money on it. Even when you sell all of your tickets. It's the cost of exposure.

(12-30-2013 02:13 PM)Knights_of_UCF Wrote:  Eh I am really curious. I looked it up, each credit is worth approx $220k. So it would take 79.5 wins to equal the bcs payout of 17.5m. That is a ton of wins needed, so yes I'd gladly make the deal of Memphis can keep their credits while ucf keeps the bcs bowl money. That's 13 straight championships worth of bball wins.

Math is not your friend. Each unit earned is worth (it's actually a little over $250k this year) it's price for six years. Meaning if you earn 3 credits this year, it pays the year's value of 3 units each year for the next six years. So if Memphis goes to a Sweet 16, it would pay the conference approximately $4.5 million over the next six years just using this year's value (the values increase about 7% annually). But the other key factor is the NCAA pays the expenses first, so this is pure profit to the league, and not having to subtract expenses first.

The other difference to note is UCF did not "earn" the $17.5 million for the league: the league was going to get it ANYWAY. That bid was "earned" by the schools that came before UCF, Miami, Virginia Tech, Syracuse, Pitt, and Boston College namely, and carried on by West Virginia, Cincinnati, and Louisville. So smack talking should cease. Had a team earned a second bid, then it would have been earned, such as Oklahoma, Ohio St, Clemson, and Alabama did. The auto bids did not "earn" money for the league it was not already getting. NCAA credits, on the other hand, anything past the autobid first game, are earned by teams. Next year, if the BCS/ACCESS spot is earned by a team, that team will have earned it. But in theory Memphis could have finished 6-6 this year and still gotten the same BCS bid UCF did, because the AAC was obligated to get one.

(12-30-2013 03:10 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(12-30-2013 01:43 PM)Knights_of_UCF Wrote:  Bowl teams should get a bigger cut. Also lol at bianchi being a ucf surrogate. Don't read many of his columns do you OP?

Bowl teams DO get a bigger cut. And the BCS teams get the biggest cut. But you still lose money on it. Even when you sell all of your tickets. It's the cost of exposure.

(12-30-2013 02:13 PM)Knights_of_UCF Wrote:  Eh I am really curious. I looked it up, each credit is worth approx $220k. So it would take 79.5 wins to equal the bcs payout of 17.5m. That is a ton of wins needed, so yes I'd gladly make the deal of Memphis can keep their credits while ucf keeps the bcs bowl money. That's 13 straight championships worth of bball wins.

Math is not your friend. Each unit earned is worth (it's actually a little over $250k this year) it's price for six years. Meaning if you earn 3 credits this year, it pays the year's value of 3 units each year for the next six years. So if Memphis goes to a Sweet 16, it would pay the conference approximately $4.5 million over the next six years just using this year's value (the values increase about 7% annually). But the other key factor is the NCAA pays the expenses first, so this is pure profit to the league, and not having to subtract expenses first.

The other difference to note is UCF did not "earn" the $17.5 million for the league: the league was going to get it ANYWAY. That bid was "earned" by the schools that came before UCF, Miami, Virginia Tech, Syracuse, Pitt, and Boston College namely, and carried on by West Virginia, Cincinnati, and Louisville. So smack talking should cease. Had a team earned a second bid, then it would have been earned, such as Oklahoma, Ohio St, Clemson, and Alabama did. The auto bids did not "earn" money for the league it was not already getting. NCAA credits, on the other hand, anything past the autobid first game, are earned by teams. Next year, if the BCS/ACCESS spot is earned by a team, that team will have earned it. But in theory Memphis could have finished 6-6 this year and still gotten the same BCS bid UCF did, because the AAC was obligated to get one.

If ucf had sold all of its tickets it wouldn't have lost money. That part is simply not true.

As for your second point, I never said ucf earned the conference 17.5m. I just said if Memphis fans were offering to trade me the bcs winnings vs their tournament credits it would take a lot of credits to break even. About 9 wins. How many does Memphis have over the past 6 year window? Btw I didn't bring that point up, a Memphis fan did.

Finally, if Memphis made it to the sweet 16 that would be only 2 wins or 2 credits and 3m over 6 years not 4.5m. Math can make fools of everyone.

(12-30-2013 01:22 PM)CyberBull Wrote:  UCF surrogate, Mike Bianchi writes this morning:
"It's not crippling and we can handle it," UCF President John Hitt says. "We just don't feel like we should have to. … You shouldn't place such a burden on the team that earns the money."

Sell your damn tickets UCF and stopping looking for a handout.

(12-30-2013 03:17 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-30-2013 01:22 PM)CyberBull Wrote:  UCF surrogate, Mike Bianchi writes this morning:
"It's not crippling and we can handle it," UCF President John Hitt says. "We just don't feel like we should have to. … You shouldn't place such a burden on the team that earns the money."

Sell your damn tickets UCF and stopping looking for a handout.

1/10 troll attempt.

(12-30-2013 03:16 PM)Knights_of_UCF Wrote:  

(12-30-2013 03:10 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(12-30-2013 01:43 PM)Knights_of_UCF Wrote:  Bowl teams should get a bigger cut. Also lol at bianchi being a ucf surrogate. Don't read many of his columns do you OP?

Bowl teams DO get a bigger cut. And the BCS teams get the biggest cut. But you still lose money on it. Even when you sell all of your tickets. It's the cost of exposure.

(12-30-2013 02:13 PM)Knights_of_UCF Wrote:  Eh I am really curious. I looked it up, each credit is worth approx $220k. So it would take 79.5 wins to equal the bcs payout of 17.5m. That is a ton of wins needed, so yes I'd gladly make the deal of Memphis can keep their credits while ucf keeps the bcs bowl money. That's 13 straight championships worth of bball wins.

Math is not your friend. Each unit earned is worth (it's actually a little over $250k this year) it's price for six years. Meaning if you earn 3 credits this year, it pays the year's value of 3 units each year for the next six years. So if Memphis goes to a Sweet 16, it would pay the conference approximately $4.5 million over the next six years just using this year's value (the values increase about 7% annually). But the other key factor is the NCAA pays the expenses first, so this is pure profit to the league, and not having to subtract expenses first.

The other difference to note is UCF did not "earn" the $17.5 million for the league: the league was going to get it ANYWAY. That bid was "earned" by the schools that came before UCF, Miami, Virginia Tech, Syracuse, Pitt, and Boston College namely, and carried on by West Virginia, Cincinnati, and Louisville. So smack talking should cease. Had a team earned a second bid, then it would have been earned, such as Oklahoma, Ohio St, Clemson, and Alabama did. The auto bids did not "earn" money for the league it was not already getting. NCAA credits, on the other hand, anything past the autobid first game, are earned by teams. Next year, if the BCS/ACCESS spot is earned by a team, that team will have earned it. But in theory Memphis could have finished 6-6 this year and still gotten the same BCS bid UCF did, because the AAC was obligated to get one.

If ucf had sold all of its tickets it wouldn't have lost money. That part is simply not true.

As for your second point, I never said ucf earned the conference 17.5m. I just said if Memphis fans were offering to trade me the bcs winnings vs their tournament credits it would take a lot of credits to break even. About 9 wins. How many does Memphis have over the past 6 year window? Btw I didn't bring that point up, a Memphis fan did.

The problem once again is the amount of tickets the school is on the hook for. If the league can't lower the bowls requirements like the SEC has done then the school needs to know how much the league will help them with and sell tickets thru their site at a discount to sell as many thru them

(12-30-2013 03:16 PM)Knights_of_UCF Wrote:  As for your second point, I never said ucf earned the conference 17.5m.

You didn't, but UCF's President did, and he was dead wrong, laughably wrong.

(12-30-2013 03:16 PM)Knights_of_UCF Wrote:  ... I just said if Memphis fans were offering to trade me the bcs winnings vs their tournament credits it would take a lot of credits to break even. About 9 wins. How many does Memphis have over the past 6 year window? Btw I didn't bring that point up, a Memphis fan did.

Good grief, brother; this was the extent of my comment when the basketball credit discussion started........

Quote:In the ebbs and flows of college athletics, be careful of what you speak for multiple reasons.

When Mike B made his comment, he expected over-reaction and you're playing right into what he envisioned.

(12-30-2013 02:56 PM)Knights_of_UCF Wrote:  

(12-30-2013 02:44 PM)CyberBull Wrote:  

(12-30-2013 02:31 PM)Knights_of_UCF Wrote:  

(12-30-2013 02:26 PM)CyberBull Wrote:  

(12-30-2013 02:18 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  How in the world did you manage to make this about USF/UCF?

You're really reaching here. I'm tempted to just disapprove the post so this thread doesn't devolve into another USF/UCF pissing match.

How am I reaching when the article goes out its way to bash USF? Are we not allowed to be critical? You realize that their is difference between being critical and running smack. Please note that I a questioning Bianchi and Hitt's comments with resorting to childish "butthurt" comments.

How did you get it bashing usf out of the op? Also saying bianchi is a ucf homer is as much smack talk as you can throw at ucf.

You are definitely reaching and showing just how hurt you are ucf is in bcs.

Did you miss the bottom feeder comment?

In terms of UCF's BCS run....I have been congratulatory and really doesn't matter that much for me as you guys won it fair and square. I hope you guys win and represent the conference well.

We're usf memphis and temple not bottom feeders in football this year? I'm struggling to see your point.

You don't think that it was an unnecessary cheap shot?

(12-30-2013 01:54 PM)CyberBull Wrote:  

(12-30-2013 01:36 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  Uhhh his argument is flawed.

BECAUSE of the conference, SOMEONE was getting that bowl bid. UCF won it by winning the conference, not in spite of it.

Bianchi is an idiot.

This idiot does not make you guys any friends. I realize that big time college athletics is not necessarily in the friends making business but when a guy who inserts himself as a mouthpiece for UCF takes shots at fellow conference schools....that is not good. I also realize the acrimony, real and made up, between USF and UCF....but USF is experiencing its FIRST down cycle in its history and not likely to be in this position moving forward for the same reason UCF has been able to overcome some horrific seasons. UCF may be getting the shaft this year but it will surely benefit down the road when it suffers a couple down season as all programs do.

If UCF or any other conference team has a problem with the revenue distribution model then they should submit their concerns to the conference agenda for consideration. However you can't do this ad hoc just b/c it's convenient for UCF this year.

Don't lump us in with that guy, he's a fair weather guy for UCF and a gator first. No one really cares what he says.

(12-30-2013 03:23 PM)oldtiger Wrote:  

(12-30-2013 03:16 PM)Knights_of_UCF Wrote:  ... I just said if Memphis fans were offering to trade me the bcs winnings vs their tournament credits it would take a lot of credits to break even. About 9 wins. How many does Memphis have over the past 6 year window? Btw I didn't bring that point up, a Memphis fan did.

Good grief, brother; this was the extent of my comment when the basketball credit discussion started........

Quote:In the ebbs and flows of college athletics, be careful of what you speak for multiple reasons.

When Mike B made his comment, he expected over-reaction and you're playing right into what he envisioned.

Wasn't disagreeing with you, it was the other Memphis fan who wanted to trade credits. Not every post is a direct response to you ole boy.

(12-30-2013 03:23 PM)CyberBull Wrote:  

(12-30-2013 02:56 PM)Knights_of_UCF Wrote:  

(12-30-2013 02:44 PM)CyberBull Wrote:  

(12-30-2013 02:31 PM)Knights_of_UCF Wrote:  

(12-30-2013 02:26 PM)CyberBull Wrote:  How am I reaching when the article goes out its way to bash USF? Are we not allowed to be critical? You realize that their is difference between being critical and running smack. Please note that I a questioning Bianchi and Hitt's comments with resorting to childish "butthurt" comments.

How did you get it bashing usf out of the op? Also saying bianchi is a ucf homer is as much smack talk as you can throw at ucf.

You are definitely reaching and showing just how hurt you are ucf is in bcs.

Did you miss the bottom feeder comment?

In terms of UCF's BCS run....I have been congratulatory and really doesn't matter that much for me as you guys won it fair and square. I hope you guys win and represent the conference well.

We're usf memphis and temple not bottom feeders in football this year? I'm struggling to see your point.

You don't think that it was an unnecessary cheap shot?

As much of an unnecessary cheap shot as you calling obvious troll mike bianchi a surrogate of ucf.

(12-30-2013 03:16 PM)Knights_of_UCF Wrote:  If ucf had sold all of its tickets it wouldn't have lost money. That part is simply not true.

Teams who sell all of their allotments still lose money. That is simply... true. Happened with Louisville in 2006, WVU in 2005 and 2007, and Cincinnati in 2008, all sold their entire allotment and still lost money (Cincy even sold all of their tickets and then some more). Unless you do it on the cheap, and most teams don't, the total outlay of expenses, even without tickets, exceeds what you get from the conference for a BCS game, since schools use it to wine and dine bog donors and boosters. They spend a lot fo money, and thus lose money on the trip. It happens to EVERY team. This part is not debatable. You will not find one team who had to leave their home state who did not lose money on their BCS trip in the last ten years, regardless of ticket sales. LSU, Miami, Florida St, Georgia, and USC might have escaped since they each played at least one BCS game in their home state, but none of the rest did.

(12-30-2013 03:16 PM)Knights_of_UCF Wrote:  Finally, if Memphis made it to the sweet 16 that would be only 2 wins or 2 credits and 3m over 6 years not 4.5m. Math can make fools of everyone.

Son, don't respond back to me when you don't know what you are talking about. When it comes to NCAA units, you are paid by the game, not by the win, up a max of 5 units per year (i.e. no extra unit for the championship game). You also earn units for the play-in games too (but again there is a max of five, so even making to the Final Four, you can only earn five units). So if they made it to the sweet 16, they would earn three units: four if they were in a play in game.

(12-30-2013 03:00 PM)UCFKnight10 Wrote:  Can we just delete this? Bianchi is a joke.

Why? Honestly, if this thread is pulled then every other thread should be as well.

UCF's president thinks the AAC is being unfair to UCF. Hitt answered the question and Bianchi piled on as he usually does and took unnecessary shots at member institutions. Why do you think this should not be discussed?

Even if you take away the Bianchi troll attempt....what Hitt is suggesting deserves discussion. IMO, it's a bad idea as a balanced conference revenue sharing approach is the only model that has been shown historically to work.

(12-30-2013 03:28 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(12-30-2013 03:16 PM)Knights_of_UCF Wrote:  If ucf had sold all of its tickets it wouldn't have lost money. That part is simply not true.

Teams who sell all of their allotments still lose money. That is simply true. Happened with Louisville in 2006, WVU in 2005 and 2007, and Cincinnati in 2008, even though they sold all of their tickets and then some more. Unless you do it on the cheap, and most teams don't, the total outlay of expenses, even without tickets, exceeds what you get from the conference for a BCS game. It happens to EVERY team.

First, it would depend on how you define "doing it on the cheap". If anything less than bringing a 300-piece band, 50 cheerleaders, 200 administrators (and their wives), your 200 wealthiest alumni, and commandeering two floors of a 4-star hotel in the process is "doing it on the cheap", well then you are correct. But ...

Second, since most conferences pool and split the bowl money (yes, with adjustments for travel and bowl-type, etc., but still, the money is largely pooled-and-split), it makes little sense to say schools from P5 conferences lose money on a BCS bowl game, because they don't just get a share of that game's money, but all the conference bowl money.

E.g., last year it was widely reported that Florida "lost" $840,000 on the Sugar Bowl. But, that only took into consideration what they spent on that bowl vs their cut of the Sugar Bowl money (and their travel allowance from the SEC). But Florida didn't just get a cut of the Sugar Bowl money, they also got cuts from the Outback, Cap One, BCS Title game, and all the other SEC bowls, and when you factor all that in they actually made a profit of about $3 million from overall bowl participation.

Now, the AAC is different, in that our bowl payouts are so meager that UCF might actually lose money, even accounting for all bowl revenue.

(12-30-2013 03:28 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(12-30-2013 03:16 PM)Knights_of_UCF Wrote:  If ucf had sold all of its tickets it wouldn't have lost money. That part is simply not true.

Teams who sell all of their allotments still lose money. That is simply... true. Happened with Louisville in 2006, WVU in 2005 and 2007, and Cincinnati in 2008, all sold their entire allotment and still lost money (Cincy even sold all of their tickets and then some more). Unless you do it on the cheap, and most teams don't, the total outlay of expenses, even without tickets, exceeds what you get from the conference for a BCS game, since schools use it to wine and dine bog donors and boosters. They spend a lot fo money, and thus lose money on the trip. It happens to EVERY team. This part is not debatable. You will not find one team who had to leave their home state who did not lose money on their BCS trip in the last ten years, regardless of ticket sales. LSU, Miami, Florida St, Georgia, and USC might have escaped since they each played at least one BCS game in their home state, but none of the rest did.

(12-30-2013 03:16 PM)Knights_of_UCF Wrote:  Finally, if Memphis made it to the sweet 16 that would be only 2 wins or 2 credits and 3m over 6 years not 4.5m. Math can make fools of everyone.

Son, don't respond back to me when you don't know what you are talking about. When it comes to NCAA units, you are paid by the game, not by the win, up a max of 5 units per year (i.e. no extra unit for the championship game). You also earn units for the play-in games too (but again there is a max of five, so even making to the Final Four, you can only earn five units). So if they made it to the sweet 16, they would earn three units: four if they were in a play in game.

Fair enough. Point remains even if my knowledge of the rules were off. I'd take the Memphis fan offer of bcs $$ vs NCAA credits earned by Memphis any day.

As for bowl game expenses, just because a university reports a loss doesn't mean it really is one. University accounting is like playing with Monopoly money. Per ucf own sources we would have broken even if we sold approx 13k tickets.

(12-30-2013 03:34 PM)CyberBull Wrote:  

(12-30-2013 03:00 PM)UCFKnight10 Wrote:  Can we just delete this? Bianchi is a joke.

Why? Honestly, if this thread is pulled then every other thread should be as well.

UCF's president thinks the AAC is being unfair to UCF. Hitt answered the question and Bianchi piled on as he usually does and took unnecessary shots at member institutions. Why do you think this should not be discussed?

Even if you take away the Bianchi troll attempt....what Hitt is suggesting deserves discussion. IMO, it's a bad idea as a balanced conference revenue sharing approach is the only model that has been shown historically to work.

Oh you mean like when the usf mod sent a ticket attendance thread to the smack board simply because info isn't available on all league teams? Lol this thread was started as smack and you know what you were doing.

(12-30-2013 03:38 PM)Knights_of_UCF Wrote:  

(12-30-2013 03:34 PM)CyberBull Wrote:  

(12-30-2013 03:00 PM)UCFKnight10 Wrote:  Can we just delete this? Bianchi is a joke.

Why? Honestly, if this thread is pulled then every other thread should be as well.

UCF's president thinks the AAC is being unfair to UCF. Hitt answered the question and Bianchi piled on as he usually does and took unnecessary shots at member institutions. Why do you think this should not be discussed?

Even if you take away the Bianchi troll attempt....what Hitt is suggesting deserves discussion. IMO, it's a bad idea as a balanced conference revenue sharing approach is the only model that has been shown historically to work.

Oh you mean like when the usf mod sent a ticket attendance thread to the smack board simply because info isn't available on all league teams? Lol this thread was started as smack and you know what you were doing.

Smack? Posting any comments to an article that paints UCF in a bad light is now considered smack? Gotcha...only UCF happy koolaid talk from now on...

The mods need to chill out or every post is going to wind up on this board...smh

(12-30-2013 03:49 PM)CyberBull Wrote:  

(12-30-2013 03:38 PM)Knights_of_UCF Wrote:  

(12-30-2013 03:34 PM)CyberBull Wrote:  

(12-30-2013 03:00 PM)UCFKnight10 Wrote:  Can we just delete this? Bianchi is a joke.

Why? Honestly, if this thread is pulled then every other thread should be as well.

UCF's president thinks the AAC is being unfair to UCF. Hitt answered the question and Bianchi piled on as he usually does and took unnecessary shots at member institutions. Why do you think this should not be discussed?

Even if you take away the Bianchi troll attempt....what Hitt is suggesting deserves discussion. IMO, it's a bad idea as a balanced conference revenue sharing approach is the only model that has been shown historically to work.

Oh you mean like when the usf mod sent a ticket attendance thread to the smack board simply because info isn't available on all league teams? Lol this thread was started as smack and you know what you were doing.

Smack? Posting any comments to an article that paints UCF in a bad light is now considered smack? Gotcha...only UCF happy koolaid talk from now on...

The mods need to chill out or every post is going to wind up on this board...smh

Again since you can't read. Posting the article isn't smack telling us bianchi is a mouth piece for ucf is smack.