(01-10-2017 02:40 AM)Phil Lacio Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 02:36 AM)Westhoff123 Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 02:34 AM)Phil Lacio Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 02:27 AM)Westhoff123 Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 02:22 AM)Phil Lacio Wrote:  I'm serious watch the pill scene again, it's not there; neither is the "Hello, Clarice!" line in SOTL.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_conti...Q1_IbFFbzA

I remember him saying "What if I told you, you were living in a dream world? How would you be able to tell the difference between the dream world and the real world" or something to that effect; now, it's this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKwq7b2i-vc

Ok after doing research the what if i told you was started in a meme just after the movie came out. It was basically just a shortening of what he said. I knew i wasn't completely crazy.

OK, whatever; now explain the "Hello, Clarice" line or "You like me, you really like me" or "Luke, I am your father."

I always knew it was no i am your father. But Luke i am you father just sounds cooler. As far as hello clarice not sure about that.

I remember "Luke, I am your father" "Houston, we have a problem is now "Houston, we've had a problem" and I don't buy the confabulation explanation; here watch this for...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lCnPEwvtwmY

The houston we have a problem was actually started by the apollo 13 movie. I always quoted it as no i am your father, but thats because my dad liked to torture me with it. As far as that song i have never heard it before so i wouldn't know one way or another.

(01-10-2017 02:44 AM)Westhoff123 Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 02:40 AM)Phil Lacio Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 02:36 AM)Westhoff123 Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 02:34 AM)Phil Lacio Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 02:27 AM)Westhoff123 Wrote:  Ok after doing research the what if i told you was started in a meme just after the movie came out. It was basically just a shortening of what he said. I knew i wasn't completely crazy.

OK, whatever; now explain the "Hello, Clarice" line or "You like me, you really like me" or "Luke, I am your father."

I always knew it was no i am your father. But Luke i am you father just sounds cooler. As far as hello clarice not sure about that.

I remember "Luke, I am your father" "Houston, we have a problem is now "Houston, we've had a problem" and I don't buy the confabulation explanation; here watch this for...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lCnPEwvtwmY

The houston we have a problem was actually started by the apollo 13 movie. I always quoted it as no i am your father, but thats because my dad liked to torture me with it. As far as that song i have never heard it before so i wouldn't know one way or another.

What song? The link was for Sally Fields' acceptance speech and everybody from Madonna to Bill Clinton remember it a different way.

(01-10-2017 02:44 AM)Westhoff123 Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 02:40 AM)Phil Lacio Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 02:36 AM)Westhoff123 Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 02:34 AM)Phil Lacio Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 02:27 AM)Westhoff123 Wrote:  Ok after doing research the what if i told you was started in a meme just after the movie came out. It was basically just a shortening of what he said. I knew i wasn't completely crazy.

OK, whatever; now explain the "Hello, Clarice" line or "You like me, you really like me" or "Luke, I am your father."

I always knew it was no i am your father. But Luke i am you father just sounds cooler. As far as hello clarice not sure about that.

I remember "Luke, I am your father" "Houston, we have a problem is now "Houston, we've had a problem" and I don't buy the confabulation explanation; here watch this for...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lCnPEwvtwmY

The houston we have a problem was actually started by the apollo 13 movie. I always quoted it as no i am your father, but thats because my dad liked to torture me with it. As far as that song i have never heard it before so i wouldn't know one way or another.

People were saying "Houston, we have a problem" before 1995 and I remember saying it that way before the movie ever came out. Some of these MEs are BS, but some can't be dismissed as simply confabulation. I take it you're not a believer in quantum theory then?

(01-10-2017 03:00 AM)Phil Lacio Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 02:44 AM)Westhoff123 Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 02:40 AM)Phil Lacio Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 02:36 AM)Westhoff123 Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 02:34 AM)Phil Lacio Wrote:  OK, whatever; now explain the "Hello, Clarice" line or "You like me, you really like me" or "Luke, I am your father."

I always knew it was no i am your father. But Luke i am you father just sounds cooler. As far as hello clarice not sure about that.

I remember "Luke, I am your father" "Houston, we have a problem is now "Houston, we've had a problem" and I don't buy the confabulation explanation; here watch this for...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lCnPEwvtwmY

The houston we have a problem was actually started by the apollo 13 movie. I always quoted it as no i am your father, but thats because my dad liked to torture me with it. As far as that song i have never heard it before so i wouldn't know one way or another.

People were saying "Houston, we have a problem" before 1995 and I remember saying it that way before the movie ever came out. Some of these MEs are BS, but some can't be dismissed as simply confabulation. I take it you're not a believer in quantum theory then?

Oh i believe quantum theory and all. But since i was born in 1991 houston we have a problem was always a misquote from apollo 13. At least thats how i remembered it growing up. Also i didn't realize that was a quote for sally fields acceptance speech which i have also never heard. So in that respect i can't say how i remember it one way or another.

(01-10-2017 04:05 AM)Westhoff123 Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 03:00 AM)Phil Lacio Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 02:44 AM)Westhoff123 Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 02:40 AM)Phil Lacio Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 02:36 AM)Westhoff123 Wrote:  I always knew it was no i am your father. But Luke i am you father just sounds cooler. As far as hello clarice not sure about that.

I remember "Luke, I am your father" "Houston, we have a problem is now "Houston, we've had a problem" and I don't buy the confabulation explanation; here watch this for...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lCnPEwvtwmY

The houston we have a problem was actually started by the apollo 13 movie. I always quoted it as no i am your father, but thats because my dad liked to torture me with it. As far as that song i have never heard it before so i wouldn't know one way or another.

People were saying "Houston, we have a problem" before 1995 and I remember saying it that way before the movie ever came out. Some of these MEs are BS, but some can't be dismissed as simply confabulation. I take it you're not a believer in quantum theory then?

Oh i believe quantum theory and all. But since i was born in 1991 houston we have a problem was always a misquote from apollo 13. At least thats how i remembered it growing up. Also i didn't realize that was a quote for sally fields acceptance speech which i have also never heard. So in that respect i can't say how i remember it one way or another.

You saw the video, though, right; strange how so many famous people got it wrong, eh?

(01-10-2017 04:18 AM)Phil Lacio Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 04:05 AM)Westhoff123 Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 03:00 AM)Phil Lacio Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 02:44 AM)Westhoff123 Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 02:40 AM)Phil Lacio Wrote:  I remember "Luke, I am your father" "Houston, we have a problem is now "Houston, we've had a problem" and I don't buy the confabulation explanation; here watch this for...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lCnPEwvtwmY

The houston we have a problem was actually started by the apollo 13 movie. I always quoted it as no i am your father, but thats because my dad liked to torture me with it. As far as that song i have never heard it before so i wouldn't know one way or another.

People were saying "Houston, we have a problem" before 1995 and I remember saying it that way before the movie ever came out. Some of these MEs are BS, but some can't be dismissed as simply confabulation. I take it you're not a believer in quantum theory then?

Oh i believe quantum theory and all. But since i was born in 1991 houston we have a problem was always a misquote from apollo 13. At least thats how i remembered it growing up. Also i didn't realize that was a quote for sally fields acceptance speech which i have also never heard. So in that respect i can't say how i remember it one way or another.

You saw the video, though, right; strange how so many famous people got it wrong, eh?

Eh not really.... When i was a cop i responded to several accidents were there were multiple witnesses, and not a single one was able to tell the exact same story of what they witnessed. It wasn't like these people didn't see the accident either, they literally witnessed totally different events at the same accident. It has something to do with adrenaline is all.

Which is why i don't buy the Mandela effect bs. Besides the fact that i didn't even know who Mandela was till he died asking different people to recall the same event from 20 years ago means each one will probably remember it differently.

(01-10-2017 04:41 AM)Westhoff123 Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 04:18 AM)Phil Lacio Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 04:05 AM)Westhoff123 Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 03:00 AM)Phil Lacio Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 02:44 AM)Westhoff123 Wrote:  The houston we have a problem was actually started by the apollo 13 movie. I always quoted it as no i am your father, but thats because my dad liked to torture me with it. As far as that song i have never heard it before so i wouldn't know one way or another.

People were saying "Houston, we have a problem" before 1995 and I remember saying it that way before the movie ever came out. Some of these MEs are BS, but some can't be dismissed as simply confabulation. I take it you're not a believer in quantum theory then?

Oh i believe quantum theory and all. But since i was born in 1991 houston we have a problem was always a misquote from apollo 13. At least thats how i remembered it growing up. Also i didn't realize that was a quote for sally fields acceptance speech which i have also never heard. So in that respect i can't say how i remember it one way or another.

You saw the video, though, right; strange how so many famous people got it wrong, eh?

Eh not really.... When i was a cop i responded to several accidents were there were multiple witnesses, and not a single one was able to tell the exact same story of what they witnessed. It wasn't like these people didn't see the accident either, they literally witnessed totally different events at the same accident. It has something to do with adrenaline is all.

Which is why i don't buy the Mandela effect bs. Besides the fact that i didn't even know who Mandela was till he died asking different people to recall the same event from 20 years ago means each one will probably remember it differently.

I know about witness recall and confabulation, but you didn't answer how so many famous people could all get that quote wrong? Confabulation just won't cut it on this one, Wes.

(01-10-2017 05:03 AM)Phil Lacio Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 04:41 AM)Westhoff123 Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 04:18 AM)Phil Lacio Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 04:05 AM)Westhoff123 Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 03:00 AM)Phil Lacio Wrote:  People were saying "Houston, we have a problem" before 1995 and I remember saying it that way before the movie ever came out. Some of these MEs are BS, but some can't be dismissed as simply confabulation. I take it you're not a believer in quantum theory then?

Oh i believe quantum theory and all. But since i was born in 1991 houston we have a problem was always a misquote from apollo 13. At least thats how i remembered it growing up. Also i didn't realize that was a quote for sally fields acceptance speech which i have also never heard. So in that respect i can't say how i remember it one way or another.

You saw the video, though, right; strange how so many famous people got it wrong, eh?

Eh not really.... When i was a cop i responded to several accidents were there were multiple witnesses, and not a single one was able to tell the exact same story of what they witnessed. It wasn't like these people didn't see the accident either, they literally witnessed totally different events at the same accident. It has something to do with adrenaline is all.

Which is why i don't buy the Mandela effect bs. Besides the fact that i didn't even know who Mandela was till he died asking different people to recall the same event from 20 years ago means each one will probably remember it differently.

I know about witness recall and confabulation, but you didn't answer how so many famous people could all get that quote wrong? Confabulation just won't cut it on this one, Wes.

Well its called getting old and having faulty memory. You'll understand in when you turn 35.

(01-10-2017 05:14 AM)Westhoff123 Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 05:03 AM)Phil Lacio Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 04:41 AM)Westhoff123 Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 04:18 AM)Phil Lacio Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 04:05 AM)Westhoff123 Wrote:  Oh i believe quantum theory and all. But since i was born in 1991 houston we have a problem was always a misquote from apollo 13. At least thats how i remembered it growing up. Also i didn't realize that was a quote for sally fields acceptance speech which i have also never heard. So in that respect i can't say how i remember it one way or another.

You saw the video, though, right; strange how so many famous people got it wrong, eh?

Eh not really.... When i was a cop i responded to several accidents were there were multiple witnesses, and not a single one was able to tell the exact same story of what they witnessed. It wasn't like these people didn't see the accident either, they literally witnessed totally different events at the same accident. It has something to do with adrenaline is all.

Which is why i don't buy the Mandela effect bs. Besides the fact that i didn't even know who Mandela was till he died asking different people to recall the same event from 20 years ago means each one will probably remember it differently.

I know about witness recall and confabulation, but you didn't answer how so many famous people could all get that quote wrong? Confabulation just won't cut it on this one, Wes.

Well its called getting old and having faulty memory. You'll understand in when you turn 35.

I'm way older than that, junior. lmao

(01-10-2017 05:19 AM)Phil Lacio Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 05:14 AM)Westhoff123 Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 05:03 AM)Phil Lacio Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 04:41 AM)Westhoff123 Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 04:18 AM)Phil Lacio Wrote:  You saw the video, though, right; strange how so many famous people got it wrong, eh?

Eh not really.... When i was a cop i responded to several accidents were there were multiple witnesses, and not a single one was able to tell the exact same story of what they witnessed. It wasn't like these people didn't see the accident either, they literally witnessed totally different events at the same accident. It has something to do with adrenaline is all.

Which is why i don't buy the Mandela effect bs. Besides the fact that i didn't even know who Mandela was till he died asking different people to recall the same event from 20 years ago means each one will probably remember it differently.

I know about witness recall and confabulation, but you didn't answer how so many famous people could all get that quote wrong? Confabulation just won't cut it on this one, Wes.

Well its called getting old and having faulty memory. You'll understand in when you turn 35.

I'm way older than that, junior. lmao

Well why are you awake? Go to bed grandpa!

(01-10-2017 05:24 AM)Westhoff123 Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 05:19 AM)Phil Lacio Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 05:14 AM)Westhoff123 Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 05:03 AM)Phil Lacio Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 04:41 AM)Westhoff123 Wrote:  Eh not really.... When i was a cop i responded to several accidents were there were multiple witnesses, and not a single one was able to tell the exact same story of what they witnessed. It wasn't like these people didn't see the accident either, they literally witnessed totally different events at the same accident. It has something to do with adrenaline is all.

Which is why i don't buy the Mandela effect bs. Besides the fact that i didn't even know who Mandela was till he died asking different people to recall the same event from 20 years ago means each one will probably remember it differently.

I know about witness recall and confabulation, but you didn't answer how so many famous people could all get that quote wrong? Confabulation just won't cut it on this one, Wes.

Well its called getting old and having faulty memory. You'll understand in when you turn 35.

I'm way older than that, junior. lmao

Well why are you awake? Go to bed grandpa!

Don't start with me, you young whipper snapper....I'm a Bad Grandpa! lol

(01-10-2017 02:44 AM)Westhoff123 Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 02:40 AM)Phil Lacio Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 02:36 AM)Westhoff123 Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 02:34 AM)Phil Lacio Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 02:27 AM)Westhoff123 Wrote:  Ok after doing research the what if i told you was started in a meme just after the movie came out. It was basically just a shortening of what he said. I knew i wasn't completely crazy.

OK, whatever; now explain the "Hello, Clarice" line or "You like me, you really like me" or "Luke, I am your father."

I always knew it was no i am your father. But Luke i am you father just sounds cooler. As far as hello clarice not sure about that.

I remember "Luke, I am your father" "Houston, we have a problem is now "Houston, we've had a problem" and I don't buy the confabulation explanation; here watch this for...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lCnPEwvtwmY

The houston we have a problem was actually started by the apollo 13 movie. I always quoted it as no i am your father, but thats because my dad liked to torture me with it. As far as that song i have never heard it before so i wouldn't know one way or another.

Well, the actor who played Darth Vader recalls it being "Luke, I am your father" in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jR7OaxiLkh0

(01-09-2017 01:03 PM)Chappy Wrote:  Basically, here is the breakdown from last year:

Quote:The following estimates of the CFP revenue distribution are based on preliminary calculations for the 2015-2016 season and are only approximate projections of potential revenue distribution from each component:

(1) Each conference will receive $300,000 for each of its schools when the school’s football team meets the NCAA’s APR for participation in a post-season football game. Each independent institution will also receive the $300,000 when its football team meets that standard.

(2) Each of the 10 conferences will also receive a base amount. For conferences that have contracts for their champions to participate in the Orange, Rose or Sugar Bowl, the base combined with the full academic performance pool will be approximately $51 million for each conference. The five conferences that do not have contracts for their champions to participate in the Orange, Rose or Sugar Bowls will receive approximately $79 million in aggregate (full academic pool plus base), which the conferences will distribute as they choose. Notre Dame will receive a payment of $2.58 million if it meets the APR standard; the other two independents will share $618,241.

(3) A conference will receive $6 million for each team that is selected for the semifinal games. There will be no additional distribution to conferences whose teams qualify for the national championship game. A conference will receive $4 million for each team that plays in a non-playoff bowl under the arrangement (in 2014-2015, the Cotton, Fiesta and Peach Bowls).

(4) Each conference whose team participates in a playoff semifinal, Cotton, Fiesta or Peach Bowl, or in the national championship game will receive $2.08 million to cover expenses for each game. Additionally, certain conferences in the Football Championship Subdivision conferences will receive
$2.34 million in aggregate.

The above article is only dealing with the part I bolded, which is where "group of five" comes from. If we ever truly want there to be a group of four, we need to get a contract with one of those bowls, but let's not go down that path in this thread please.

edit - now that I read it again, I think that item 2 includes item 1, based on the "base combined with the full academic performance pool" language.

I think it's comical how they set up this distribution. Most of the interest in the college football postseason is now the 3 playoff games. The vast majority of the windfall of cash from this contract is for those 3 games. Yet if a "G5" team was somehow able to make the playoffs, even win the national championship, they'd receive $2M more than if they went to the table-scraps NY6 bowl game.

I also don't get the concept of "buying the cotton bowl". Having a contract for a bowl game pays $50M/yr under this setup. It should cost 100s of millions of dollars to buy our way into something like that.

Finally, the G4 should be ashamed for agreeing to be part of this.

(01-10-2017 10:48 AM)SublimeKnight Wrote:  

(01-09-2017 01:03 PM)Chappy Wrote:  Basically, here is the breakdown from last year:

Quote:The following estimates of the CFP revenue distribution are based on preliminary calculations for the 2015-2016 season and are only approximate projections of potential revenue distribution from each component:

(1) Each conference will receive $300,000 for each of its schools when the school’s football team meets the NCAA’s APR for participation in a post-season football game. Each independent institution will also receive the $300,000 when its football team meets that standard.

(2) Each of the 10 conferences will also receive a base amount. For conferences that have contracts for their champions to participate in the Orange, Rose or Sugar Bowl, the base combined with the full academic performance pool will be approximately $51 million for each conference. The five conferences that do not have contracts for their champions to participate in the Orange, Rose or Sugar Bowls will receive approximately $79 million in aggregate (full academic pool plus base), which the conferences will distribute as they choose. Notre Dame will receive a payment of $2.58 million if it meets the APR standard; the other two independents will share $618,241.

(3) A conference will receive $6 million for each team that is selected for the semifinal games. There will be no additional distribution to conferences whose teams qualify for the national championship game. A conference will receive $4 million for each team that plays in a non-playoff bowl under the arrangement (in 2014-2015, the Cotton, Fiesta and Peach Bowls).

(4) Each conference whose team participates in a playoff semifinal, Cotton, Fiesta or Peach Bowl, or in the national championship game will receive $2.08 million to cover expenses for each game. Additionally, certain conferences in the Football Championship Subdivision conferences will receive
$2.34 million in aggregate.

The above article is only dealing with the part I bolded, which is where "group of five" comes from. If we ever truly want there to be a group of four, we need to get a contract with one of those bowls, but let's not go down that path in this thread please.

edit - now that I read it again, I think that item 2 includes item 1, based on the "base combined with the full academic performance pool" language.

I think it's comical how they set up this distribution. Most of the interest in the college football postseason is now the 3 playoff games. The vast majority of the windfall of cash from this contract is for those 3 games. Yet if a "G5" team was somehow able to make the playoffs, even win the national championship, they'd receive $2M more than if they went to the table-scraps NY6 bowl game.

I also don't get the concept of "buying the cotton bowl". Having a contract for a bowl game pays $50M/yr under this setup. It should cost 100s of millions of dollars to buy our way into something like that.

Finally, the G4 should be ashamed for agreeing to be part of this.

I think you are right, but I seem to remember some kind of way at the time the ACC buying or maybe just paying for som type of ownership stake in the Orange bowl. I'm probably wrong but I am sure some one here knows more about than me.

(01-10-2017 11:05 AM)Tigersmoke3 Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 10:48 AM)SublimeKnight Wrote:  

(01-09-2017 01:03 PM)Chappy Wrote:  Basically, here is the breakdown from last year:

Quote:The following estimates of the CFP revenue distribution are based on preliminary calculations for the 2015-2016 season and are only approximate projections of potential revenue distribution from each component:

(1) Each conference will receive $300,000 for each of its schools when the school’s football team meets the NCAA’s APR for participation in a post-season football game. Each independent institution will also receive the $300,000 when its football team meets that standard.

(2) Each of the 10 conferences will also receive a base amount. For conferences that have contracts for their champions to participate in the Orange, Rose or Sugar Bowl, the base combined with the full academic performance pool will be approximately $51 million for each conference. The five conferences that do not have contracts for their champions to participate in the Orange, Rose or Sugar Bowls will receive approximately $79 million in aggregate (full academic pool plus base), which the conferences will distribute as they choose. Notre Dame will receive a payment of $2.58 million if it meets the APR standard; the other two independents will share $618,241.

(3) A conference will receive $6 million for each team that is selected for the semifinal games. There will be no additional distribution to conferences whose teams qualify for the national championship game. A conference will receive $4 million for each team that plays in a non-playoff bowl under the arrangement (in 2014-2015, the Cotton, Fiesta and Peach Bowls).

(4) Each conference whose team participates in a playoff semifinal, Cotton, Fiesta or Peach Bowl, or in the national championship game will receive $2.08 million to cover expenses for each game. Additionally, certain conferences in the Football Championship Subdivision conferences will receive
$2.34 million in aggregate.

The above article is only dealing with the part I bolded, which is where "group of five" comes from. If we ever truly want there to be a group of four, we need to get a contract with one of those bowls, but let's not go down that path in this thread please.

edit - now that I read it again, I think that item 2 includes item 1, based on the "base combined with the full academic performance pool" language.

I think it's comical how they set up this distribution. Most of the interest in the college football postseason is now the 3 playoff games. The vast majority of the windfall of cash from this contract is for those 3 games. Yet if a "G5" team was somehow able to make the playoffs, even win the national championship, they'd receive $2M more than if they went to the table-scraps NY6 bowl game.

I also don't get the concept of "buying the cotton bowl". Having a contract for a bowl game pays $50M/yr under this setup. It should cost 100s of millions of dollars to buy our way into something like that.

Finally, the G4 should be ashamed for agreeing to be part of this.

I think you are right, but I seem to remember some kind of way at the time the ACC buying or maybe just paying for som type of ownership stake in the Orange bowl. I'm probably wrong but I am sure some one here knows more about than me.

No, the ACC does not own any part of the Orange Bowl. They might have a revenue sharing arrangement under the contract that they have with the Orange Bowl, but it's not an ownership stake and the ACC certainly hasn't paid a single dime to the Orange Bowl.

The Big 12 and SEC own what they call the "Champions Bowl", but that's really just a shell entity that was bid on and contracted out to the Sugar Bowl (who pays the Big 12 and SEC for the right to hold the Champions Bowl matchup in the Sugar Bowl). At the end of the day, it's the same financial setup as the ACC's contract with the Orange Bowl and the Big Ten/Pac-12 contract with the Rose Bowl: the Sugar Bowl pays out approximately $40 million to each of the Big 12 and SEC in non-playoff years. To the extent that the contract bowls have granted ownership-like features to the P5 leagues, that was ENTIRELY by contract and without cost to those P5 leagues. The contract bowls willingly GAVE those revenue streams to the P5 leagues and actually PAID them for the right to do it (and the P5 leagues didn't pay any of those contract bowls a single dime). The money is flowing in only one direction here.

The point is that it takes two to tango and you can't just ignore free market forces. Chappy is correct in the sense that a G5 conference cannot "buy" a contract bowl and magically generate the revenue that the P5 are making from their respective contract bowls... and even if a G5 conference *could* "buy" a contract bowl, it would take literally hundreds of millions of dollars in order to buy a bowl that has the resources to generate an $80 million-plus annual payout to two participating conferences. Now, even if you were willing to pay hundreds of millions of dollars for a contract bowl, remember that (a) this exercise defeats the entire financial allure of a contract bowl if you have the equivalent of mortgage payments on hundreds of millions of dollars for a $40 million payout in return when the P5 conferences are getting that $40 million payout for "free" by comparison and (b) the whole reason why those bowls are able to afford $40 million payouts in the first place is because they feature elite P5 teams that are most attractive to the TV networks and sponsors to generate revenue, so replacing a P5 tie-in (or even an access slot that's 99% assured to go to a P5 team) with a G5 tie-in would inherently reduce the value of the payout. No one is handing out $40 million to random conferences for charity - those TV networks and sponsors are paying that money for certain brand name matchups with prestige and they'll stop paying that money if they're not getting that anymore.

TL;DR: the free market sets the value of payouts for G5 leagues. A G5 league cannot unilaterally buy a contract bowl or do anything else to increase bowl revenue on its own.

(01-10-2017 10:48 AM)SublimeKnight Wrote:  

(01-09-2017 01:03 PM)Chappy Wrote:  Basically, here is the breakdown from last year:

Quote:The following estimates of the CFP revenue distribution are based on preliminary calculations for the 2015-2016 season and are only approximate projections of potential revenue distribution from each component:

(1) Each conference will receive $300,000 for each of its schools when the school’s football team meets the NCAA’s APR for participation in a post-season football game. Each independent institution will also receive the $300,000 when its football team meets that standard.

(2) Each of the 10 conferences will also receive a base amount. For conferences that have contracts for their champions to participate in the Orange, Rose or Sugar Bowl, the base combined with the full academic performance pool will be approximately $51 million for each conference. The five conferences that do not have contracts for their champions to participate in the Orange, Rose or Sugar Bowls will receive approximately $79 million in aggregate (full academic pool plus base), which the conferences will distribute as they choose. Notre Dame will receive a payment of $2.58 million if it meets the APR standard; the other two independents will share $618,241.

(3) A conference will receive $6 million for each team that is selected for the semifinal games. There will be no additional distribution to conferences whose teams qualify for the national championship game. A conference will receive $4 million for each team that plays in a non-playoff bowl under the arrangement (in 2014-2015, the Cotton, Fiesta and Peach Bowls).

(4) Each conference whose team participates in a playoff semifinal, Cotton, Fiesta or Peach Bowl, or in the national championship game will receive $2.08 million to cover expenses for each game. Additionally, certain conferences in the Football Championship Subdivision conferences will receive
$2.34 million in aggregate.

The above article is only dealing with the part I bolded, which is where "group of five" comes from. If we ever truly want there to be a group of four, we need to get a contract with one of those bowls, but let's not go down that path in this thread please.

edit - now that I read it again, I think that item 2 includes item 1, based on the "base combined with the full academic performance pool" language.

I think it's comical how they set up this distribution. Most of the interest in the college football postseason is now the 3 playoff games. The vast majority of the windfall of cash from this contract is for those 3 games. Yet if a "G5" team was somehow able to make the playoffs, even win the national championship, they'd receive $2M more than if they went to the table-scraps NY6 bowl game.

I also don't get the concept of "buying the cotton bowl". Having a contract for a bowl game pays $50M/yr under this setup. It should cost 100s of millions of dollars to buy our way into something like that.

The peach and cotton bowl aren't $50 million dollar conference payout bowls, but buying them and making them AAC contract anchor bowls or arranging that via contract with those bowl owners would definitely improve our image. Right now, both bowls have no conference tie ins and are designated at large/G5 status.

(01-10-2017 12:21 PM)Phil Lacio Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 10:48 AM)SublimeKnight Wrote:  

(01-09-2017 01:03 PM)Chappy Wrote:  Basically, here is the breakdown from last year:

Quote:The following estimates of the CFP revenue distribution are based on preliminary calculations for the 2015-2016 season and are only approximate projections of potential revenue distribution from each component:

(1) Each conference will receive $300,000 for each of its schools when the school’s football team meets the NCAA’s APR for participation in a post-season football game. Each independent institution will also receive the $300,000 when its football team meets that standard.

(2) Each of the 10 conferences will also receive a base amount. For conferences that have contracts for their champions to participate in the Orange, Rose or Sugar Bowl, the base combined with the full academic performance pool will be approximately $51 million for each conference. The five conferences that do not have contracts for their champions to participate in the Orange, Rose or Sugar Bowls will receive approximately $79 million in aggregate (full academic pool plus base), which the conferences will distribute as they choose. Notre Dame will receive a payment of $2.58 million if it meets the APR standard; the other two independents will share $618,241.

(3) A conference will receive $6 million for each team that is selected for the semifinal games. There will be no additional distribution to conferences whose teams qualify for the national championship game. A conference will receive $4 million for each team that plays in a non-playoff bowl under the arrangement (in 2014-2015, the Cotton, Fiesta and Peach Bowls).

(4) Each conference whose team participates in a playoff semifinal, Cotton, Fiesta or Peach Bowl, or in the national championship game will receive $2.08 million to cover expenses for each game. Additionally, certain conferences in the Football Championship Subdivision conferences will receive
$2.34 million in aggregate.

The above article is only dealing with the part I bolded, which is where "group of five" comes from. If we ever truly want there to be a group of four, we need to get a contract with one of those bowls, but let's not go down that path in this thread please.

edit - now that I read it again, I think that item 2 includes item 1, based on the "base combined with the full academic performance pool" language.

I think it's comical how they set up this distribution. Most of the interest in the college football postseason is now the 3 playoff games. The vast majority of the windfall of cash from this contract is for those 3 games. Yet if a "G5" team was somehow able to make the playoffs, even win the national championship, they'd receive $2M more than if they went to the table-scraps NY6 bowl game.

I also don't get the concept of "buying the cotton bowl". Having a contract for a bowl game pays $50M/yr under this setup. It should cost 100s of millions of dollars to buy our way into something like that.

The peach and cotton bowl aren't $50 million dollar conference payout bowls, but buying them and making them AAC contract anchor bowls would definitely improve our image. Right now, both bowls have no conference tie ins and are designated at large/G5 status.

It is right in the section I quoted: "For conferences that have contracts for their champions to participate in the Orange, Rose or Sugar Bowl, the base combined with the full academic performance pool will be approximately $51 million for each conference."

(01-10-2017 12:24 PM)SublimeKnight Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 12:21 PM)Phil Lacio Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 10:48 AM)SublimeKnight Wrote:  

(01-09-2017 01:03 PM)Chappy Wrote:  Basically, here is the breakdown from last year:

Quote:The following estimates of the CFP revenue distribution are based on preliminary calculations for the 2015-2016 season and are only approximate projections of potential revenue distribution from each component:

(1) Each conference will receive $300,000 for each of its schools when the school’s football team meets the NCAA’s APR for participation in a post-season football game. Each independent institution will also receive the $300,000 when its football team meets that standard.

(2) Each of the 10 conferences will also receive a base amount. For conferences that have contracts for their champions to participate in the Orange, Rose or Sugar Bowl, the base combined with the full academic performance pool will be approximately $51 million for each conference. The five conferences that do not have contracts for their champions to participate in the Orange, Rose or Sugar Bowls will receive approximately $79 million in aggregate (full academic pool plus base), which the conferences will distribute as they choose. Notre Dame will receive a payment of $2.58 million if it meets the APR standard; the other two independents will share $618,241.

(3) A conference will receive $6 million for each team that is selected for the semifinal games. There will be no additional distribution to conferences whose teams qualify for the national championship game. A conference will receive $4 million for each team that plays in a non-playoff bowl under the arrangement (in 2014-2015, the Cotton, Fiesta and Peach Bowls).

(4) Each conference whose team participates in a playoff semifinal, Cotton, Fiesta or Peach Bowl, or in the national championship game will receive $2.08 million to cover expenses for each game. Additionally, certain conferences in the Football Championship Subdivision conferences will receive
$2.34 million in aggregate.

The above article is only dealing with the part I bolded, which is where "group of five" comes from. If we ever truly want there to be a group of four, we need to get a contract with one of those bowls, but let's not go down that path in this thread please.

edit - now that I read it again, I think that item 2 includes item 1, based on the "base combined with the full academic performance pool" language.

I think it's comical how they set up this distribution. Most of the interest in the college football postseason is now the 3 playoff games. The vast majority of the windfall of cash from this contract is for those 3 games. Yet if a "G5" team was somehow able to make the playoffs, even win the national championship, they'd receive $2M more than if they went to the table-scraps NY6 bowl game.

I also don't get the concept of "buying the cotton bowl". Having a contract for a bowl game pays $50M/yr under this setup. It should cost 100s of millions of dollars to buy our way into something like that.

The peach and cotton bowl aren't $50 million dollar conference payout bowls, but buying them and making them AAC contract anchor bowls would definitely improve our image. Right now, both bowls have no conference tie ins and are designated at large/G5 status.

It is right in the section I quoted: "For conferences that have contracts for their champions to participate in the Orange, Rose or Sugar Bowl, the base combined with the full academic performance pool will be approximately $51 million for each conference."

I know, that's why the peach and cotton bowls aren't listed, because they have no contract. However, if we were to buy one or both of them, they would have to give us something, since they use those two bowls as NYE6 bowls; buying them could only help us and we need to do it soon, because we are being priced out of FBS.

(01-10-2017 12:24 PM)SublimeKnight Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 12:21 PM)Phil Lacio Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 10:48 AM)SublimeKnight Wrote:  

(01-09-2017 01:03 PM)Chappy Wrote:  Basically, here is the breakdown from last year:

Quote:The following estimates of the CFP revenue distribution are based on preliminary calculations for the 2015-2016 season and are only approximate projections of potential revenue distribution from each component:

(1) Each conference will receive $300,000 for each of its schools when the school’s football team meets the NCAA’s APR for participation in a post-season football game. Each independent institution will also receive the $300,000 when its football team meets that standard.

(2) Each of the 10 conferences will also receive a base amount. For conferences that have contracts for their champions to participate in the Orange, Rose or Sugar Bowl, the base combined with the full academic performance pool will be approximately $51 million for each conference. The five conferences that do not have contracts for their champions to participate in the Orange, Rose or Sugar Bowls will receive approximately $79 million in aggregate (full academic pool plus base), which the conferences will distribute as they choose. Notre Dame will receive a payment of $2.58 million if it meets the APR standard; the other two independents will share $618,241.

(3) A conference will receive $6 million for each team that is selected for the semifinal games. There will be no additional distribution to conferences whose teams qualify for the national championship game. A conference will receive $4 million for each team that plays in a non-playoff bowl under the arrangement (in 2014-2015, the Cotton, Fiesta and Peach Bowls).

(4) Each conference whose team participates in a playoff semifinal, Cotton, Fiesta or Peach Bowl, or in the national championship game will receive $2.08 million to cover expenses for each game. Additionally, certain conferences in the Football Championship Subdivision conferences will receive
$2.34 million in aggregate.

The above article is only dealing with the part I bolded, which is where "group of five" comes from. If we ever truly want there to be a group of four, we need to get a contract with one of those bowls, but let's not go down that path in this thread please.

edit - now that I read it again, I think that item 2 includes item 1, based on the "base combined with the full academic performance pool" language.

I think it's comical how they set up this distribution. Most of the interest in the college football postseason is now the 3 playoff games. The vast majority of the windfall of cash from this contract is for those 3 games. Yet if a "G5" team was somehow able to make the playoffs, even win the national championship, they'd receive $2M more than if they went to the table-scraps NY6 bowl game.

I also don't get the concept of "buying the cotton bowl". Having a contract for a bowl game pays $50M/yr under this setup. It should cost 100s of millions of dollars to buy our way into something like that.

The peach and cotton bowl aren't $50 million dollar conference payout bowls, but buying them and making them AAC contract anchor bowls would definitely improve our image. Right now, both bowls have no conference tie ins and are designated at large/G5 status.

It is right in the section I quoted: "For conferences that have contracts for their champions to participate in the Orange, Rose or Sugar Bowl, the base combined with the full academic performance pool will be approximately $51 million for each conference."

So maybe what we need is for some of those billion dollar corporate sponsors that were willing to step up to get their teams in the big12 to come together with a sponsorship package to basically achieve the same out come

(01-10-2017 12:33 PM)Tigersmoke3 Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 12:24 PM)SublimeKnight Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 12:21 PM)Phil Lacio Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 10:48 AM)SublimeKnight Wrote:  

(01-09-2017 01:03 PM)Chappy Wrote:  Basically, here is the breakdown from last year:


The above article is only dealing with the part I bolded, which is where "group of five" comes from. If we ever truly want there to be a group of four, we need to get a contract with one of those bowls, but let's not go down that path in this thread please.

edit - now that I read it again, I think that item 2 includes item 1, based on the "base combined with the full academic performance pool" language.

I think it's comical how they set up this distribution. Most of the interest in the college football postseason is now the 3 playoff games. The vast majority of the windfall of cash from this contract is for those 3 games. Yet if a "G5" team was somehow able to make the playoffs, even win the national championship, they'd receive $2M more than if they went to the table-scraps NY6 bowl game.

I also don't get the concept of "buying the cotton bowl". Having a contract for a bowl game pays $50M/yr under this setup. It should cost 100s of millions of dollars to buy our way into something like that.

The peach and cotton bowl aren't $50 million dollar conference payout bowls, but buying them and making them AAC contract anchor bowls would definitely improve our image. Right now, both bowls have no conference tie ins and are designated at large/G5 status.

It is right in the section I quoted: "For conferences that have contracts for their champions to participate in the Orange, Rose or Sugar Bowl, the base combined with the full academic performance pool will be approximately $51 million for each conference."

So maybe what we need is for some of those billion dollar corporate sponsors that were willing to step up to get their teams in the big12 to come together with a sponsorship package to basically achieve the same out come

All those Houston billionaires and FedEx execs need to step up to the plate, not just the microphone, with their wallets this time.