(03-26-2013 01:58 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(03-26-2013 12:19 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  Ultimately this is a moot point because this is a contract issue, not an "inherent fairness" issue, which is why I am completely OK with Syracuse's credits staying with the A-12.

While the check is made out to the conference based on how many appearances its representative teams have made in the previous six years, the contract issue stands in any event ~ the distribution of the NCAA units was set in the bylaws of a voluntary association that Pitt elected to be a member of, and so was the fact that a team that pulled up stakes ~ whether for a richer conference payout somewhere else or because they wanted to drop out of Div1 football ~ would not get any share of the units received by the Old Big East forwarded to it at its new conference.

I'm not sure what your point is, but if you're trying to suggest that miko33 doesn't have grounds to be upset, then I would like to redirect you to my reply to captain bearcat. If you were just clarifying my point, then cheers.

(03-26-2013 12:19 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  You're wrong. Sharing creates stability. It prevents highs and lows. He is saying that the credits should follow the school and be shared in the new conference, as opposed to staying in the old conference where they are shared amongst the remaining schools. Memphis would actually beenfit from this rule because their credits wouldn't stay in the CUSA. They would be moved to the A-12, where Memphis would get a share of the distribution.

You actually point out the most recent proof that NCAA credits do, indeed, belong to schools. Memphis has shared credits with CUSA since they've been a member...just like virtually every school does. When it came time to start discussing exit fees for the schools intent on leaving CUSA, Memphis came in the room with those credits in hand and essentially said, "Here ya go...all the credits we've earned while members of CUSA that still have distributions due in coming years." CUSA said, "Sounds good to us. Nice doing business with you."

Memphis blah-blah-blah on conference transition

Quote:The Tigers’ entry into the Big East comes with financial implications, too. The school placed $1.7 million in escrow last year for future use in settling Conference USA exit fees, though the final total remains in flux. Memphis was able to apply past NCAA basketball tournament payouts to its C-USA bill to reach that total and may be able to use this year’s credits, too.

(03-26-2013 12:19 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(03-25-2013 10:47 AM)Lord2FLI Wrote:  

(03-25-2013 10:46 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(03-25-2013 10:37 AM)Lord2FLI Wrote:  

(03-25-2013 10:26 AM)miko33 Wrote:  You miss my point. Of course the conferences need to come together as a team and share the money. But when a school leaves one conference and goes to another, the credits should follow them to the new conference. Schools like UH, SMU, Memphis and Tulane did nothing to help the Aresco conf. They should not get the right to have the credits that Syracuse, Pitt, WVU, etc. made. Those credits should go to their new conferences.

Why should schools, like Memphis, who have a lot of credits tied to their name, have to share with their new conference?

Because you need the help on the football side of the equation. Look, I'm not saying that schools shouldn't share with their conference mates. I think it's fair though to allow the credits to transfer with the departing school to the new conference.

If the credits can move around then they belong to the school and at no point should they have to share. Sharing is fair to everyone else, but not the person doing the sharing.

You're wrong.

No I'm not. It doesn't matter what's being shared, it's never fair to the person doing the sharing.

(03-27-2013 11:04 AM)Lord2FLI Wrote:  No I'm not. It doesn't matter what's being shared, it's never fair to the person doing the sharing.

Congrats! That may be one of the stupidest things I've ever read on the Internet. Really.

Conferences are entities (in regulatory, legal, and other senses of the word...as defined by the overarching entity, the NCAA) created by mutual agreement of all schools involved. While it's certainly possible that a school could sign up without gaining anything but having to give up something it's not likely. So, to your point, sharing is, indeed, fair to the parties doing the sharing because they believe they will get back equal value (if not necessarily equal units) in return. So School A shares it's NCAA credits with the conference to ensure the other schools will do likewise. If School A's basketball program unexpectedly underperforms for a few years it still has money coming in from the credits of other schools. If the conference unexpectedly dissolves or realignment occurs and School A has given up more than it got in return, it still gained. Why? Because the school was able to strategically plan and invest based on the relatively stable conference distribution...something it could not have done just based on hoping the basketball program keeps doing well.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

(03-27-2013 01:18 PM)blazr Wrote:  

(03-27-2013 11:04 AM)Lord2FLI Wrote:  No I'm not. It doesn't matter what's being shared, it's never fair to the person doing the sharing.

Congrats! That may be one of the stupidest things I've ever read on the Internet. Really.

Blah Blah Blah

You're welcome.