I keep seeing in these threads people talking about a penalty if you don't have 12-teams. Quick someone needs to inform the DeLoss Dodds Conference.

I'm not as connected to collegiate athletics as I once was, but I'm still in the loop to a degree and this sounds like another internet contrived rumor.

I have never heard of such and if Benson said something to this effect I'm going to guess either it was misinterpreted
or Benson is even a bigger moron than I've been giving him credit for or he's the worst soothsayer ever.

If I have missed this impending NCAA legislation would someone please point me to it?

I agree that it sounds a bit contrived. I will believe it when I see it.

The alleged "penalty" is not a penalty from the NCAA, but a reduced payout from the playoff system. Need a championship game to receive full (or any) payout, ergo need 12 teams.

This is my understanding, I can provide no help as to the legitimacy of the rumor.

Not sure if it applies or not, but remember, the big conferences play by a whole different set of rules than the small conferences. And, what applies to the Big 12, does not apply to the SBC.

(03-26-2013 10:37 AM)Tiguar Wrote:  The alleged "penalty" is not a penalty from the NCAA, but a reduced payout from the playoff system. Need a championship game to receive full (or any) payout, ergo need 12 teams.

This is my understanding, I can provide no help as to the legitimacy of the rumor.

Got it.

I see what's happened here. For starters, Slappy is right.

The P5 are going to split a preponderance of the playoff money and they are going to do so how they see fit (and with the Big 12 having no title game I don't see that flying).

The remaining amount (I don't remember the number w/o looking it up) will be split among the G5 schools in a yet to be determined distribution plan. I suspect this "issue" emerged when trying to figure out how to split those revenues if conferences don't have an even number of teams. At any rate, at this point in those negotiations that's probably one of about a dozen models that are being pitched.

Chill folks. It's not on the books yet. The revenue sharing is a complex issue no doubt, and if they are even seriously considering this the G5 leaders have lost their minds. All they're going to to do is keep a perpetual motion of bringing more and more I-AA schools which is going to further dilute our already diminished share. I believe Banowsky and Thompson are too smart to not consider unintended consequences like this.

Maybe it exists, maybe it doesn't. All we know is the only reference to it was the press conference in Hot Springs.

I bet the extra per hour costs of the charter expenses are probably going to diminish any penalty savings you would have incurred. That's an additional eight flights (four to Idaho and four to NMSU) for the league that are going to incur two to three times as much expenses as they would for a 1 to 2 hour flight.

(03-26-2013 11:08 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  I bet the extra per hour costs of the charter expenses are probably going to diminish any penalty savings you would have incurred. That's an additional eight flights (four to Idaho and four to NMSU) for the league that are going to incur two to three times as much expenses as they would for a 1 to 2 hour flight.

Once a year for one sport. Eastern conference will be every two years. Assuming NMSU and Idaho aren't the same year.

(03-26-2013 11:10 AM)slycat Wrote:  

(03-26-2013 11:08 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  I bet the extra per hour costs of the charter expenses are probably going to diminish any penalty savings you would have incurred. That's an additional eight flights (four to Idaho and four to NMSU) for the league that are going to incur two to three times as much expenses as they would for a 1 to 2 hour flight.

Once a year for one sport. Eastern conference will be every two years. Assuming NMSU and Idaho aren't the same year.

So, Idaho and NMSU are only going to get one home conference game?

Your math might be a little off. Add the number of conference games both will get at home and recalculate the total cost to the other members of the conference as a whole.

Is the conference paying the travel cost?

I always thought it was the individual school that payed its travel cost.

Which means once every couple years you would be going to Idaho.

I agree it is a BAD addittion, but if it gets us increased revenue from the playoff system, then it might be worth it.

Honestly, I would rather take less money and have a better top to bottom league, but I am not a president, so I don't make those decisions.

(03-26-2013 11:41 AM)TrojanNation Wrote:  Is the conference paying the travel cost?

I always thought it was the individual school that payed its travel cost.

Which means once every could years you would be going to Idaho.

We can do it by school if you want, but that's a lot of uncessary adding and dividing by number of members.

This is in reference to the penalty. The penalty (if it were even true) would be assessed to the conference which would then decrease the distribution payout per member. I'm just cutting the division out of this and looking at it as whole number (conference) instead of a fraction (per school).

And the year you're not going to Idaho you may be going to NMSU instead. Either way those two schools are going to play four home games each and only Texas St is going to have somewhat similar travel costs to anyone else in the league and that's only with respect to NMSU and not Idaho.

Of course if you're in the east and lucky enough to not have either of them on the schedule for a couple of years you may never have to make the trip at all as things keep changing.

(03-26-2013 11:41 AM)TrojanNation Wrote:  Is the conference paying the travel cost?

I always thought it was the individual school that payed its travel cost.

Which means once every couple years you would be going to Idaho.

I agree it is a BAD addittion, but if it gets us increased revenue from the playoff system, then it might be worth it.

Honestly, I would rather take less money and have a better top to bottom league, but I am not a president, so I don't make those decisions.

There is no travel subsidy unless the league is planning to dip into the extra BCS money this year and the future bonanza of CFP money or the extra NCAA unit money to pay it.

The nutshell is: Arkansas State and Louisiana are guaranteed every year to have at least one conference road trip of not less than 1,000 miles (ULM just skates under 1,000 to Las Cruces and Texas State is shorter).
Texas State will go over 1,000 every other year to Idaho, and over 1,000 every other year to either App or Georgia Southern. Even set ideally, Texas State will get 1,000+ mile trip every season.

The eastern division schools will likely make the LONG trips, once every two years. Host NMSU year 1, at NMSU year 2, host Idaho year 3, at Idaho year 4. All divisonal trips under 700 miles.

when i saw the title of this topic i thought....oooh...oooh...i can answer this one.

i thought you had received some double secret probation points.

i could have told you all about them. but if you're a good boy for awhile they go away!

(03-26-2013 10:34 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  I keep seeing in these threads people talking about a penalty if you don't have 12-teams. Quick someone needs to inform the DeLoss Dodds Conference.

I'm not as connected to collegiate athletics as I once was, but I'm still in the loop to a degree and this sounds like another internet contrived rumor.

I have never heard of such and if Benson said something to this effect I'm going to guess either it was misinterpreted
or Benson is even a bigger moron than I've been giving him credit for or he's the worst soothsayer ever.

If I have missed this impending NCAA legislation would someone please point me to it?