(03-19-2015 06:50 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(03-19-2015 02:32 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(03-19-2015 02:03 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(03-19-2015 11:54 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Consider this. If my idea had been in place...
WKU in departing the Sun Belt would have had to give up $1.1 million just from NCAA earnings in 2014, $603,000 in 2015, $378,000 in 2016, 2017, 2018 and $126,000 in 2019.

Foregoing that direct revenue would have been a big hit.

How could WKU give up revenue after they are gone? They had to give up their 2014 revenue because they left.

Where is the $14 million in Sun Belt revenue coming from?

In the piece I wrote, I advocated for a plan where schools earning units in excess of the one we get for simply being a Division I conference should keep 90% of the excess they earn.

If it had been in place WKU would have had 2 units from 2008, 1 from 2009, one from 2012, and shared a half unit with MTSU in 2013 because those were the units earned in excess of the one guaranteed unit.

But they would have forfeited that money with the CUSA announcement. With the current plan the bulk all goes into the big hopper and you share and share alike.

There is not enough revenue to make this work. The NCAA payment for tournament units is estimated at about $250,000 for this year. The Sun Belt will get nine units based on the period of 2009-2014. That comes out to $2.25 million or about $204,000 per school. I don't like the idea of cutting that paltry number further for a school that is struggling with their basketball budget. That revenue is really important to non-football programs like UTA and Arkansas Little Rock.

If the $14 million you mentioned for Sun Belt revenue is primarily football revenue, I don't think any school is going to want to potentially have football revenue lost because of the performance of the basketball team. In your system, Georgia State would get a bonus for basketball performance, but lose nothing for their football performance.

Different economic systems.

The NCAA guarantees you six units for simply existing as a Division I conference. My plan only gives you more if you do something to increase the revenue.

CFP operates differently. You get up to $12 million for merely existing. Then there is performance money which is an aggregate of the entire league and finally there is money for the Access Bowl. As I understand the league's bowl policy if a team makes the Access Bowl, that team takes $3 million and the remaining three million is then divided equally.

The guaranteed unit for having an auto bid is the equivalent of the $1 million per team that the CFP pays. Any other units earned are the equivalent of earning an access bowl berth.

(03-20-2015 12:34 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(03-19-2015 06:50 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(03-19-2015 02:32 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(03-19-2015 02:03 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(03-19-2015 11:54 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Consider this. If my idea had been in place...
WKU in departing the Sun Belt would have had to give up $1.1 million just from NCAA earnings in 2014, $603,000 in 2015, $378,000 in 2016, 2017, 2018 and $126,000 in 2019.

Foregoing that direct revenue would have been a big hit.

How could WKU give up revenue after they are gone? They had to give up their 2014 revenue because they left.

Where is the $14 million in Sun Belt revenue coming from?

In the piece I wrote, I advocated for a plan where schools earning units in excess of the one we get for simply being a Division I conference should keep 90% of the excess they earn.

If it had been in place WKU would have had 2 units from 2008, 1 from 2009, one from 2012, and shared a half unit with MTSU in 2013 because those were the units earned in excess of the one guaranteed unit.

But they would have forfeited that money with the CUSA announcement. With the current plan the bulk all goes into the big hopper and you share and share alike.

There is not enough revenue to make this work. The NCAA payment for tournament units is estimated at about $250,000 for this year. The Sun Belt will get nine units based on the period of 2009-2014. That comes out to $2.25 million or about $204,000 per school. I don't like the idea of cutting that paltry number further for a school that is struggling with their basketball budget. That revenue is really important to non-football programs like UTA and Arkansas Little Rock.

If the $14 million you mentioned for Sun Belt revenue is primarily football revenue, I don't think any school is going to want to potentially have football revenue lost because of the performance of the basketball team. In your system, Georgia State would get a bonus for basketball performance, but lose nothing for their football performance.

Different economic systems.

The NCAA guarantees you six units for simply existing as a Division I conference. My plan only gives you more if you do something to increase the revenue.

CFP operates differently. You get up to $12 million for merely existing. Then there is performance money which is an aggregate of the entire league and finally there is money for the Access Bowl. As I understand the league's bowl policy if a team makes the Access Bowl, that team takes $3 million and the remaining three million is then divided equally.

The guaranteed unit for having an auto bid is the equivalent of the $1 million per team that the CFP pays. Any other units earned are the equivalent of earning an access bowl berth.

There is not enough revenue to make your plan work and the RPI penalties will effect football revenue earned. It is not a workable plan. The Atlantic 10 has a "to the victor goes the spoils" revenue distribution system which involves 75% going to the school that earned the unit and 25% to the rest of the conference. They can make that work because of their revenue. In 2014 they got $11.5 million from NCAA revenue and another $5 million from their TV contract. Schools at the bottom of the A10 conference still make good revenue.

There are no easy solutions to this other than scheduling better opponents and winning.

(03-17-2015 05:02 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Change revenue distribution, change either post-season or regular season format, and change the schedule requirements.
http://arkansasstate.scout.com/story/152...oops?s=334

Let GaSt get to the final four and confiscate their money in the name of conference needs. Oh, wait we already do that.

(03-20-2015 02:21 PM)CajunExpress Wrote:  

(03-17-2015 05:02 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Change revenue distribution, change either post-season or regular season format, and change the schedule requirements.
http://arkansasstate.scout.com/story/152...oops?s=334

Let GaSt get to the final four and confiscate their money in the name of conference needs. Oh, wait we already do that.

That's how most conferences do it

The first round the conference owns that money no doubt. After that it should belong to the doers. I do not care what other conferences do, especially those with seven members in the big dance.

Clearly you did not get my indignation with the conference rip off.

(03-19-2015 01:29 PM)Saint3333 Wrote:  

(03-19-2015 11:50 AM)GaSoEagle Wrote:  The only way I would eliminate the tournament is if we continue a double round robin with everyone playing everyone home/home.

Why it doesn't work that way in football?

If you play 16 games and take care of business, you win the conference.

The one-game playoff idea, with two divisions, would cover this. Ten games in the division, six cross-divisional, one-game playoff between division winners for the title.

The best way to improve the conference in basketball is to win games. Then win some more games. Win the games you should win. Win the toss up games, them win some of the game folks did not give you any chance of winning. If enough of the conference teams start to do this for an extended amount of time one day folks will look up and say the conference is a dam good basketball conference.

"Together We Rise" is what it is going to take in any sport as a conference. The out look on a conference in sports by others look at the entire picture. Each of us know that the conference has reached that peak when other school know that they have done something when they get excited just because they beat the team from the conference that everyone in the conference sees as the weak sister.

The best way to improve conference hoops? Play more like Georgia State!

(03-20-2015 01:51 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(03-20-2015 12:34 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(03-19-2015 06:50 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(03-19-2015 02:32 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(03-19-2015 02:03 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  How could WKU give up revenue after they are gone? They had to give up their 2014 revenue because they left.

Where is the $14 million in Sun Belt revenue coming from?

In the piece I wrote, I advocated for a plan where schools earning units in excess of the one we get for simply being a Division I conference should keep 90% of the excess they earn.

If it had been in place WKU would have had 2 units from 2008, 1 from 2009, one from 2012, and shared a half unit with MTSU in 2013 because those were the units earned in excess of the one guaranteed unit.

But they would have forfeited that money with the CUSA announcement. With the current plan the bulk all goes into the big hopper and you share and share alike.

There is not enough revenue to make this work. The NCAA payment for tournament units is estimated at about $250,000 for this year. The Sun Belt will get nine units based on the period of 2009-2014. That comes out to $2.25 million or about $204,000 per school. I don't like the idea of cutting that paltry number further for a school that is struggling with their basketball budget. That revenue is really important to non-football programs like UTA and Arkansas Little Rock.

If the $14 million you mentioned for Sun Belt revenue is primarily football revenue, I don't think any school is going to want to potentially have football revenue lost because of the performance of the basketball team. In your system, Georgia State would get a bonus for basketball performance, but lose nothing for their football performance.

Different economic systems.

The NCAA guarantees you six units for simply existing as a Division I conference. My plan only gives you more if you do something to increase the revenue.

CFP operates differently. You get up to $12 million for merely existing. Then there is performance money which is an aggregate of the entire league and finally there is money for the Access Bowl. As I understand the league's bowl policy if a team makes the Access Bowl, that team takes $3 million and the remaining three million is then divided equally.

The guaranteed unit for having an auto bid is the equivalent of the $1 million per team that the CFP pays. Any other units earned are the equivalent of earning an access bowl berth.

There is not enough revenue to make your plan work and the RPI penalties will effect football revenue earned. It is not a workable plan. The Atlantic 10 has a "to the victor goes the spoils" revenue distribution system which involves 75% going to the school that earned the unit and 25% to the rest of the conference. They can make that work because of their revenue. In 2014 they got $11.5 million from NCAA revenue and another $5 million from their TV contract. Schools at the bottom of the A10 conference still make good revenue.

There are no easy solutions to this other than scheduling better opponents and winning.

We functioned as a conference operating on at most $3 million in revenue just before the CFP came along and now we have $14 million or so and can't afford to give up $250k?

(03-20-2015 02:55 PM)Pounce FTW Wrote:  

(03-19-2015 01:29 PM)Saint3333 Wrote:  

(03-19-2015 11:50 AM)GaSoEagle Wrote:  The only way I would eliminate the tournament is if we continue a double round robin with everyone playing everyone home/home.

Why it doesn't work that way in football?

If you play 16 games and take care of business, you win the conference.

The one-game playoff idea, with two divisions, would cover this. Ten games in the division, six cross-divisional, one-game playoff between division winners for the title.

If just the conference champs advance are you counting the crossover games? There would have been a bit of a difference this year in one east contender hosting AState and traveling to ULM and the other hosting ULM and traveling to AState.

Hope the SBC figures out something soon...embarrassing we can't get one team in the NIT when the other G5 conferences have multiple teams in it...

Still shocked that GaSo got left out of the NIT, and post season play entirely. But if GaSt has a sweet 16 run in them, and ULL and ULM do well in their tournaments, the SBC might just prove we aren't quite as bad as everyone thinks we are. With the way the basketball schedule sets up, you spend the last 2+ months only playing conference games, so really, what can you compare the teams to??? If you have a young team that doesn't get it together early on, and then figures it out in early January, losses all non conference games and then beats everyone in conference, looks bad, but in reality, that team just got it figured out and is now one of the best in the nation.

Does this ramble make sense to anyone but me???

(03-20-2015 04:00 PM)Usajags Wrote:  Still shocked that GaSo got left out of the NIT, and post season play entirely. But if GaSt has a sweet 16 run in them, and ULL and ULM do well in their tournaments, the SBC might just prove we aren't quite as bad as everyone thinks we are. With the way the basketball schedule sets up, you spend the last 2+ months only playing conference games, so really, what can you compare the teams to??? If you have a young team that doesn't get it together early on, and then figures it out in early January, losses all non conference games and then beats everyone in conference, looks bad, but in reality, that team just got it figured out and is now one of the best in the nation.

Does this ramble make sense to anyone but me???

It does, but most of the lower mid-major programs with NIT invitations won their regular season championships. Not all, but most. ULM, UL and Georgia Southern did not win either, RPI's nothing special either.