I saw someone stating that the money will be split somewhere between 50/50 and 70/30 between all conferences and the participants.

After getting over the initial shock that everyone is agreeing to play nice, I then started to think conferences were a bad way to distribute this portion of the check.

If a large percentage of the distribution is to be handed out equally, then I think it should be paid to each school individually. That way all teams get the same check no matter if they are in a 14 team conference or an 8 team one.

The other thing I think is that the distribution should be based on years in the FBS. I think that it should be acknowledged that the system has earned it's value in the popularity gained over years of playing FBS football so a move up from FCS should have to take some time to be fully vested in it. I think something like 20 years to become fully vested is reasonable. Some teams have been investing in football for over 100 years now.

I think this could attempt to slow down a sudden influx of FCS teams that might occur if you could move up and immediately get a full share of the playoff money.

(06-13-2012 11:43 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  I saw someone stating that the money will be split somewhere between 50/50 and 70/30 between all conferences and the participants.

I've read that rumor too, and I really hope it's way off... I mean, can you imagine even 30% going to the participants, when there are only 4 of them? Not like basketball where there are 68 slices... 4 is grossly unfair (and they're going to let the SEC perhaps have 2 of the 4 slices?)

(06-13-2012 11:43 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  I then started to think conferences were a bad way to distribute this portion of the check... If a large percentage of the distribution is to be handed out equally, then I think it should be paid to each school individually. That way all teams get the same check no matter if they are in a 14 team conference or an 8 team one.

that would simplify things

(06-13-2012 11:43 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  The other thing I think is that the distribution should be based on years in the FBS. I think that it should be acknowledged that the system has earned it's value in the popularity gained over years of playing FBS football so a move up from FCS should have to take some time to be fully vested in it. I think something like 20 years to become fully vested is reasonable. Some teams have been investing in football for over 100 years now.

I think this could attempt to slow down a sudden influx of FCS teams that might occur if you could move up and immediately get a full share of the playoff money.

Never thought about that before, but it's a good point.

(06-14-2012 03:26 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(06-13-2012 11:43 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  I saw someone stating that the money will be split somewhere between 50/50 and 70/30 between all conferences and the participants.

I've read that rumor too, and I really hope it's way off... I mean, can you imagine even 30% going to the participants, when there are only 4 of them? Not like basketball where there are 68 slices... 4 is grossly unfair (and they're going to let the SEC perhaps have 2 of the 4 slices?)

(06-13-2012 11:43 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  I then started to think conferences were a bad way to distribute this portion of the check... If a large percentage of the distribution is to be handed out equally, then I think it should be paid to each school individually. That way all teams get the same check no matter if they are in a 14 team conference or an 8 team one.

that would simplify things

(06-13-2012 11:43 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  The other thing I think is that the distribution should be based on years in the FBS. I think that it should be acknowledged that the system has earned it's value in the popularity gained over years of playing FBS football so a move up from FCS should have to take some time to be fully vested in it. I think something like 20 years to become fully vested is reasonable. Some teams have been investing in football for over 100 years now.

I think this could attempt to slow down a sudden influx of FCS teams that might occur if you could move up and immediately get a full share of the playoff money.

Never thought about that before, but it's a good point.

If a portion of the distro is done equally, it wouldn't matter if they do it to the schools or the conference. Say the rate is 1 million per school. a 8 team conference would get 8 million in that portion of things. a 14 team conference would get 14 million..

It is interesting about the vesting portion of things. hadn't thought of that at all. I don't see it happening quite frankly. I think the moratorium that has been discussed will be the thing that ultimately stops folks from moving up.

Let's try to keep her on topic, here.

I agree with the original post - there are better ways to distribute the money than giving it out to the conferences. That does seem to be inherently unjust. I think distributing they payment directly to the schools is a better idea. On the subject of giving more to the schools who have been at the BCS level longer, I can't necessarily agree. Part of the plight of being a new program is that you need more money to get up and going...getting the same as the other schools would be beneficial in that instance.

(06-15-2012 09:42 AM)ndlutz Wrote:  Let's try to keep her on topic, here.

I agree with the original post - there are better ways to distribute the money than giving it out to the conferences. That does seem to be inherently unjust. I think distributing they payment directly to the schools is a better idea. On the subject of giving more to the schools who have been at the BCS level longer, I can't necessarily agree. Part of the plight of being a new program is that you need more money to get up and going...getting the same as the other schools would be beneficial in that instance.

Here's my take on that though...

For the distributing to schools vs conferences- if it's the same unit distro, it doesn't matter. If it's a million each school- ACC would get 14 million from that, while Big 12 would get 10 million. It's a moot point. Now, a conference could take a portion off the top- but that would be between the team and the conference.

(06-15-2012 09:48 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(06-15-2012 09:42 AM)ndlutz Wrote:  Let's try to keep her on topic, here.

I agree with the original post - there are better ways to distribute the money than giving it out to the conferences. That does seem to be inherently unjust. I think distributing they payment directly to the schools is a better idea. On the subject of giving more to the schools who have been at the BCS level longer, I can't necessarily agree. Part of the plight of being a new program is that you need more money to get up and going...getting the same as the other schools would be beneficial in that instance.

Here's my take on that though...

For the distributing to schools vs conferences- if it's the same unit distro, it doesn't matter. If it's a million each school- ACC would get 14 million from that, while Big 12 would get 10 million. It's a moot point. Now, a conference could take a portion off the top- but that would be between the team and the conference.

The distributions now are by conference with no regard for number of members.

I've split this thread. If you want to talk smack we've got a board for that. I think this is a worthy topic, though, so I'm keeping it up.

I think it is going to be a bigger issue that Ga State is making the same as Georgia Tech than it is that Army, Colorado State, etc are making the same. At least they've put in the time and effort over the years.

You have newcomers renting stadiums and starting brand new teams to move up. I don' t think they should qualify for a full share for a while.

(06-15-2012 10:02 AM)4x4hokies Wrote:  

(06-15-2012 09:48 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(06-15-2012 09:42 AM)ndlutz Wrote:  Let's try to keep her on topic, here.

I agree with the original post - there are better ways to distribute the money than giving it out to the conferences. That does seem to be inherently unjust. I think distributing they payment directly to the schools is a better idea. On the subject of giving more to the schools who have been at the BCS level longer, I can't necessarily agree. Part of the plight of being a new program is that you need more money to get up and going...getting the same as the other schools would be beneficial in that instance.

Here's my take on that though...

For the distributing to schools vs conferences- if it's the same unit distro, it doesn't matter. If it's a million each school- ACC would get 14 million from that, while Big 12 would get 10 million. It's a moot point. Now, a conference could take a portion off the top- but that would be between the team and the conference.

The distributions now are by conference with no regard for number of members.

Right. But the thought is the payout is going to be threefold...
1- a "welfare" if you will payout- with everyone getting the same
2- a top 25 component- based on prior years(maybe 10)
3- teams in the playoff that particular year.

#1 would be something like $x per school. That would be equal.

Everything else would be performance based. Having more schools should theoretically improve this payout.

Ga State won't be making the same as Ga Tech. The top 25 component(which would be likely a huge part of the equation) will guarantee that.

(06-15-2012 10:23 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(06-15-2012 10:02 AM)4x4hokies Wrote:  

(06-15-2012 09:48 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(06-15-2012 09:42 AM)ndlutz Wrote:  Let's try to keep her on topic, here.

I agree with the original post - there are better ways to distribute the money than giving it out to the conferences. That does seem to be inherently unjust. I think distributing they payment directly to the schools is a better idea. On the subject of giving more to the schools who have been at the BCS level longer, I can't necessarily agree. Part of the plight of being a new program is that you need more money to get up and going...getting the same as the other schools would be beneficial in that instance.

Here's my take on that though...

For the distributing to schools vs conferences- if it's the same unit distro, it doesn't matter. If it's a million each school- ACC would get 14 million from that, while Big 12 would get 10 million. It's a moot point. Now, a conference could take a portion off the top- but that would be between the team and the conference.

The distributions now are by conference with no regard for number of members.

Right. But the thought is the payout is going to be threefold...
1- a "welfare" if you will payout- with everyone getting the same
2- a top 25 component- based on prior years(maybe 10)
3- teams in the playoff that particular year.

#1 would be something like $x per school. That would be equal.

Everything else would be performance based. Having more schools should theoretically improve this payout.

Ga State won't be making the same as Ga Tech. The top 25 component(which would be likely a huge part of the equation) will guarantee that.

My argument though is that the number 1 payment should be based on time spent in FBS. Since the premise is that there wouldn't be a championship unless there was a division so everyone has a part. The problem is that some people haven't invested money into this for years like others have.

So I think a proposal with new teams starting at 25-50% of a share and increasing up to 100% share in 20 years would be more fair to everyone.

I think the #1 piece is going to be the smallest. That's going to be the mechanism to pay the smaller conferences off. I don't see any chance that doing it based on length in FBS has of passing- or frankly being introduced.

(06-15-2012 12:28 PM)stever20 Wrote:  I think the #1 piece is going to be the smallest. That's going to be the mechanism to pay the smaller conferences off. I don't see any chance that doing it based on length in FBS has of passing- or frankly being introduced.

It'll either be that or a moratorium...you can't keep letting schools move up and give them full benefits immediately.

I think a moratorium is a lock to be passed.