Topic: Absolutely positively the stupidest, most outrageous, most unforgivable outcome

[_sturt_]

...of this entire realignment ordeal as far as Marshall is concerned.

http://tracking.si.com/2013/01/23/group-of-five-finalize-revenue-sharing/?xid=si_ncaaf

The “Group of Five” college football conferences want to finalize a system that will distribute money rewarding the best team and best conference, reports CBSSports.com.

The three-tier playoff revenue distribution system would divide the money based on the best overall performance. It is proposed that the conferences would split roughly $86 million. A framework for payout amounts and criteria for judging the best conference could be complete by next month.

The “Group of Five” conferences that will be put in place for the college football playoff that is set to begin in 2014 are the Big East, Mountain West, Mid-American Conference, Conference USA and Sun Belt.

    The second tier pays out based on a conference’s body of work – the top conference gets the highest amount, then “X” amount for the next-rated conference, and on down.

    The third tier pays a kicker to the conference with the highest-ranked team, which is guaranteed an access bowl bid or, if among the top-four teams in the country, a semifinal berth in the playoff.

There is NO excuse for this. We are as a school and as a conference in a position to say to Big East and MWC that if we're not going to receive an invite, then we will be part of a majority that ensures that ALL of the BCS money is spread EQUALLY period.

If this happens, Hamrick and Banowsky are on the hook.

[whf]

This is exactly what should be expected. I have said all along there isn't going to be an "equal" "group of 5".  That is exactly why it does matter a great deal who we are aligned with.  Make no mistake, this will all be another competitive step back should we end up with an advanced Sun Belt conference; fighting like crazy for third tier distribution of a small sum of money.  As I have said elsewhere, it may be where we end up; but we should be fighting daily for a better result. And even though no one in the Shewey is speaking to it, I can not really imagine that they are not.

[_sturt_]

This is exactly what should be expected. I have said all along there isn't going to be an "equal" "group of 5". That is exactly why it does matter a great deal who we are aligned with.  Make no mistake, this will all be another competitive step back should we end up with an advanced Sun Belt conference; fighting like crazy for third tier distribution of a small sum of money.  As I have said elsewhere, it may be where we end up; but we should be fighting daily for a better result. And even though no one in the Shewey is speaking to it, I can not really imagine that they are not.

My point: There would be if we locked arms with the other schools and conferences whose best interests are not served by this approach. One assumes that the process is a democratic one... and therefore, we win as part of a 3 to 2 majority in conferences, or we win as part of a 39 to 23 (or something like that) school majority... either way, we get our way if we force the issue. If we don't, then we only have ourselves to blame.

[iherdya]

My point: There would be if we locked arms with the other schools and conferences whose best interests are not served by this approach. One assumes that the process is a democratic one... and therefore, we win as part of a 3 to 2 majority in conferences, or we win as part of a 39 to 23 (or something like that) school majority... either way, we get our way if we force the issue. If we don't, then we only have ourselves to blame.

It's not as simple as the number of schools, the non-AQ BCS schools have outnumbered the AQ-BCS schools for quite sometime, how come there was no vote to do anything then? We had the numbers.

[_sturt_]

It's not as simple as the number of schools, the non-AQ BCS schools have outnumbered the AQ-BCS schools for quite sometime, how come there was no vote to do anything then? We had the numbers.

"No vote to do anything about".. what? No offense, but I don't know what you're talking about.

Where this is concerned...

McMurphy or Dodd or both reported that it was left up to the Go5 conferences to determine for themselves how they wanted to divide the money.

Don't tell me "it's not as simple as that" unless you're arguing that there is something other than a democratic process dictating the decision... and on that, please provide some evidence to support that argument.

[iherdya]

"No vote to do anything about".. what? No offense, but I don't know what you're talking about.

Where this is concerned...

McMurphy or Dodd or both reported that it was left up to the Go5 conferences to determine for themselves how they wanted to divide the money.

Don't tell me "it's not as simple as that" unless you're arguing that there is something other than a democratic process dictating the decision... and on that, please provide some evidence to support that argument.

In the history of college football, the BCS, etc where has a democratic process ruled at all? If the Group of 5 money is distributed based on a straight democratic process/vote it will be the first time, there's absolutely no precedent there right now for such a situation.

Anyway, the Big East and MWC will likely get to 16 teams soon, which would sway the numbers in their favor if there was a straight vote on how to distribute the money.

[Sam-I-am]

Sturt, I believe it will only get worse.  With the ACC about to be heavily raided, some of those teams will be left out of the Big 4.  When that happens look for teams like UC, UCONN, USF, ECU, UCF, Memphis to possibly move to the ACC.....resembling a post 2005 BE.   Whatever is left of the ACC will demand the highest cut....IMHO.

[FiTreDawG]

Am I incapable of reading?  I read this completely different. 

It isn't a tiered structure for a given conference within the 5 with set designations. 

Basically, half the money will be split evenly amongst the 5.  IE, each conference gets 8 million to pay its members which would probably amount to 700,000 to 1 million per team depending on the %.

The other "half" of the 80 million would be given out on a yearly basis for performance. 

IE, if MU or new CUSA is the best, it gets paid as the best. 

There is a 2nd tier for "best conference" and a tier for "best team within conference".  So if MU goes undefeated and has a top 20 team in a watered down new CUSA, they get rewarded for it, not as much as if a balanced new Big East has 3 teams within top 25. 

It makes us want our conference mates to be "good teams" but with this group of 5, that seriously fluctuates yearly.  This year the MAC was the conference.  Next year it will be MWC.  5 years ago it was CUSA.  There is no reason to believe it will level out any time soon. 

[_sturt_]

In the history of college football, (a) the BCS, etc where has a democratic process ruled at all? (b) If the Group of 5 money is distributed based on a straight democratic process/vote it will be the first time, there's absolutely no precedent there right now for such a situation.

(c) Anyway, the Big East and MWC will likely get to 16 teams soon, which would sway the numbers in their favor if there was a straight vote on how to distribute the money.

(a) Bowls are independent businesses. They have and always will be able to determine for themselves what conferences they want to deal with. The BCS was a consortium of the bowls and the conferences that wanted to work with each other. So there was no democratic process to even be considered.

(b) Lol... it will be the first time because, in fact, this IS the first time. Never before has there been a TV agreement that specifically allocated a large amount of money to the remaining conferences. But... help me out here and be specific... if not a democratic process, exactly what are you imagining they're doing?!? Is there a Group of Five King dictating what will happen? Or a Group of Five lottery? Or... what? Again... and you know this, but for whatever reason seem to be wanting to argue about it... in pretty much every domain in the civilized world where there is a group of people in authority, decisions are made based on democratic vote. There is no reason to think otherwise in this arena.

(c) BINGO... that's what NEEDS to happen (for our sake). But from what we know at this moment, it's not going to happen if there isn't leverage brought to bear to make it happen.

[_sturt_]

Am I incapable of reading?  I read this completely different. 

It isn't a tiered structure for a given conference within the 5 with set designations. 

Basically, half the money will be split evenly amongst the 5.  IE, each conference gets 8 million to pay its members which would probably amount to 700,000 to 1 million per team depending on the %.

The other "half" of the 80 million would be given out on a yearly basis for performance. 

IE, if MU or new CUSA is the best, it gets paid as the best. 

There is a 2nd tier for "best conference" and a tier for "best team within conference".  So if MU goes undefeated and has a top 20 team in a watered down new CUSA, they get rewarded for it, not as much as if a balanced new Big East has 3 teams within top 25. 

It makes us want our conference mates to be "good teams" but with this group of 5, that seriously fluctuates yearly.  This year the MAC was the conference.  Next year it will be MWC.  5 years ago it was CUSA.  There is no reason to believe it will level out any time soon. 

This year is an outlier.

The last time the MAC had two schools in the top 25 was... I'm not even sure when.

And if it had not been for that fact, NIU would have been without the extra push at the end that their victory in the MAC Championship provided.

Nearly every year, if things remain as they are today, it is by far most reasonable to assume based on history that the MWC and Big East schools will dominate... the MAC every now and then will have a team that threatens to squeeze in... and teams in the Sun Belt I and Sun Belt II will all operate under the "just enjoy the wins" philosophy b/c they'll have relatively no shot on any consistent basis.

We are not stepping down in competition level nearly so much as we're stepping down in reputation level. And while other teams in other conferences compete for the BCS slot with the luxury of being able to lose 2-3 games, we'll have to be gunning for undefeated just to crack honorable mention status. (Never mind that we've only won 12 games with zero losses in a regular season exactly once in our history.)

[iherdya]

(a) Bowls are independent businesses. They have and always will be able to determine for themselves what conferences they want to deal with. The BCS was a consortium of the bowls and the conferences that wanted to work with each other. So there was no democratic process to even be considered.

(b) Lol... it will be the first time because, in fact, this IS the first time. Never before has there been a TV agreement that specifically allocated a large amount of money to the remaining conferences. But... help me out here and be specific... if not a democratic process, exactly what are you imagining they're doing?!? Is there a Group of Five King dictating what will happen? Or a Group of Five lottery? Or... what? Again... and you know this, but for whatever reason seem to be wanting to argue about it... in pretty much every domain in the civilized world where there is a group of people in authority, decisions are made based on democratic vote. There is no reason to think otherwise in this arena.

(c) BINGO... that's what NEEDS to happen (for our sake). But from what we know at this moment, it's not going to happen if there isn't leverage brought to bear to make it happen.

a) Bowls are independent, but have to be certified by the NCAA before they can become official. Same with conferences. Except when the Bowl Alliance was created (in between the Bowl Coalition and the Bowl Championship Series), the teams left out have out =numbered the teams actually in...so, why didn't those teams left out call a NCAA vote on things, they had the votes, they could've voted and put pressure on the NCAA to pull BC/BA/BCS bowls certification. They didn't because even though they were outnumbered they had absolutely no leverage, they needed those schools, those bowls, that money that was shared with them even if they got the pennies from the major conferences pockets.

b) So, Marshall is going to call all these schools in the Group of 5 together and demand they vote to share ALL of the money equally? What incentive is there for the other schools to go along with it? What can Marshall do if the other schools tell us to f off? Even if the CUSA schools bandied together and did it, even with the MAC and Sun Belt, we'd have no leverage. What's our leverage? To join the big conferences? To form our own division? To drop own to 1AA?

c) If/when the Big East and MWC gets to 16, they will even more drive the show for the Group of 5. CUSA, MAC, and the Sun Belt will be at the mercy of what those two conferences decide.

[_sturt_]

Sturt, I believe it will only get worse.  With the ACC about to be heavily raided, some of those teams will be left out of the Big 4.  When that happens look for teams like UC, UCONN, USF, ECU, UCF, Memphis to possibly move to the ACC.....resembling a post 2005 BE.   Whatever is left of the ACC will demand the highest cut....IMHO.

The demise of the ACC is not immediately evident. Once Notre Dame signed up as they did, that pretty much silenced that eventuality. The prime mover that would have to occur for the dominoes to start falling is for Texas and Oklahoma to give up their position that 10 is a good number, but to do that, they have to be willing to give up part of their pie, both financially and politically. Not likely. (I still say, if they could toss WVU back into the pool now, they would jump at the chance.)

And there is no such thing as "demand the highest cut" once all of this is settled... at least, not until the next contract would be negotiated which, I believe is about ten years away. Right now is when these things are getting decided, and the stakes are so very high.

[_sturt_]

a) Bowls are independent, but have to be certified by the NCAA before they can become official. Same with conferences. Except when the Bowl Alliance was created (in between the Bowl Coalition and the Bowl Championship Series), the teams left out have out =numbered the teams actually in...so, why didn't those teams left out call a NCAA vote on things, they had the votes, they could've voted and put pressure on the NCAA to pull BC/BA/BCS bowls certification. They didn't because even though they were outnumbered they had absolutely no leverage, they needed those schools, those bowls, that money that was shared with them even if they got the pennies from the major conferences pockets.

I think you might know this... NCAA certifies bowls based on their financial viability, and not on any other basis.

The larger question that goes to your argument is, "Why hasn't the NCAA taken control of football as they have control of everything else?'

Indeed, all of these other schools could have democratically forced the power conference schools to conform to whatever they wanted, right?

Well, sure they could. And then? And then, the power conference schools could pull out of the NCAA and organize their own association.

So the bottom-line answer to your question is that the power conference schools have leverage... they bring money to the table that, if they weren't there, would leave the other schools wishing they'd never taken a vote.

You appear to understand that.

This is a very different scenario, herdya. Again... you know this...

There are not any conferences or schools among the Group of Five that are going to threaten to pull out of the NCAA if they don't get their way. Face facts, there is no such leverage working against this process because the big money schools are not involved in the discussion.

Therefore, unless you can come up with some other idea (seems you've disposed of the Go5 King or the lottery options already), it will remain a reasonable assumption to believe that the democratic process will be employed to establish how this Group of Five money is going to be distributed.

b) So, Marshall is going to call all these schools in the Group of 5 together and demand they vote to share ALL of the money equally? What incentive is there for the other schools to go along with it? What can Marshall do if the other schools tell us to f off? Even if the CUSA schools bandied together and did it, even with the MAC and Sun Belt, we'd have no leverage. What's our leverage? To join the big conferences? To form our own division? To drop own to 1AA?

Please. Now you're just not even barely using common sense.

Answer: Money.

The other schools are in the same position that we are. They, like us, have historical reason to expect that they're going to be left out most if not all years from the BCS under the current situation... and they, like us, are better placed to ensure that the money is equally divided from the first to the last dollar.

Don't get me wrong... every capitalist bone in my body screams how unfair this would actually be to not reward the best conferences and the most successful schools... but this is looking out for Number One... and this environment as it is currently constituted is not one that's going to allow us very much opportunity to (a) be in that top conference or (b) gain that BCS slot.

c) If/when the Big East and MWC gets to 16, they will even more drive the show for the Group of 5. CUSA, MAC, and the Sun Belt will be at the mercy of what those two conferences decide.

There are 12 schools currently committed to the MWC, and with SDSU leaving, 11 to the Big East.

You really don't see us as being one of the 9 schools that would be necessary for those two leagues to get to 32?

That's a hard sell.

[iherdya]

I think you might know this... NCAA certifies bowls based on their financial viability, and not on any other basis.

The larger question that goes to your argument is, "Why hasn't the NCAA taken control of football as they have control of everything else?'

Indeed, all of these other schools could have democratically forced the power conference schools to conform to whatever they wanted, right?

Well, sure they could. And then? And then, the power conference schools could pull out of the NCAA and organize their own association.

So the bottom-line answer to your question is that the power conference schools have leverage... they bring money to the table that, if they weren't there, would leave the other schools wishing they'd never taken a vote.

This is a very different scenario, herdya. Again... you know this...

There are not any conferences or schools among the Group of Five that are going to threaten to pull out of the NCAA if they don't get their way. Face facts, there is no such leverage working against this process because the big money schools are not involved in the discussion.

Please. Now you're just not even barely using common sense.

Answer: Money.

The other schools are in the same position that we are. They, like us, have historical reason to expect that they're going to be left out most if not all years from the BCS under the current situation... and they, like us, are better placed to ensure that the money is equally divided from the first to the last dollar.

Don't get me wrong... every capitalist bone in my body screams how unfair this would actually be to not reward the best conferences and the most successful schools... but this is looking out for Number One... and this environment as it is currently constituted is not one that's going to allow us very much opportunity to (a) be in that top conference or (b) gain that BCS slot.


There are 12 schools currently committed to the MWC, and with SDSU leaving, 11 to the Big East.

You really don't see us as being one of the 9 schools that would be necessary for those two leagues to get to 32?

That's a hard sell.

No, I don't. We have zero shot of being added to the MWC. So, you have to ask yourself will we be one of the ones invited to the BE if they get to 16. So far, we've been passed up by Memphis, UCF, and Tulane. It is obvious the BE has very little interest in adding Marshall, there are more attractive options out there for the BE than Marshall.

[Buffalo Bop]

. . .c) If/when the Big East and MWC gets to 16, they will even more drive the show for the Group of 5. CUSA, MAC, and the Sun Belt will be at the mercy of what those two conferences decide.

If BE and MWC both expand to 16 teams, how does the SB exist?

[_sturt_]

No, I don't. We have zero shot of being added to the MWC. So, you have to ask yourself will we be one of the ones invited to the BE if they get to 16. So far, we've been passed up by Memphis, UCF, and Tulane. It is obvious the BE has very little interest in adding Marshall, there are more attractive options out there for the BE than Marshall.

You aren't asking yourself the most basic questions.

If MWC and Big East realize they need votes and need to work together to get to that magic 32 majority number...

1) Assuming Thompson and his presidents decide MWC needs to get to 16, how do they do that?... then...

2) Assuming Aresco and his presidents decide BE needs to get to 16, how do they do that?

Here's what you would come up with...

1) MWC can't get there without Houston and SMU. And they take UTEP and Tulsa out of the pool.

2) Once Houston and SMU are out, that leaves 9 schools and 7 slots for BE to fill.

So, Marshall isn't among the next 7 options?

Really?

[_sturt_]

If BE and MWC both expand to 16 teams, how does the SB exist?

Same SB schools, new SB name...

Conference USA.

[ThunderDent]

All I know is I've been screaming this for quite a long time, and from almost every angle on here and with the talking heads, all I hear is how great this new CUSunBeltFCS is going to be.

Some of you are with me. Maybe now more of you will get with the program and stop saying how great our league is going to be.

It's not. That's why everyone wants out.

[iherdya]

All I know is I've been screaming this for quite a long time, and from almost every angle on here and with the talking heads, all I hear is how great this new CUSunBeltFCS is going to be.

Some of you are with me. Maybe now more of you will get with the program and stop saying how great our league is going to be.

It's not. That's why everyone wants out.

I'm not saying it's great, it is in no way not great. It is the same as the MAC circa 97-04 when we were winning and very happy. As of now, the Big East is no better in the entire picture of college football as the future CUSA. Is it great? Hell no! Is it terrible/end of the world? Hell no!

[_sturt_]

Pressing the point... Herdya or anyone else can answer...

Who are the seven schools from among these in the pool who you believe would be elevated to Big East ahead of Marshall?

(Remember, the premise... Big East and MWC realize they can only get the distribution they want if they expand to 32 schools to get the votes necessary... Houston, SMU, Tulsa and UTEP end up in MWC... leaving Big East to need 7 to make it to 16.)

Current CUSA members
- Southern Mississippi
- Alabama - Birmingham
- Rice

Future CUSA members
- Texas - San Antonio
- Louisiana Tech
- FIU
- FAU
- Middle Tennessee State
- Charlotte
- Old Dominion

Other Sun Belt
- Arkansas State
- Louisiana - Monroe
- Louisiana - Lafayette
- Troy
- South Alabama
- Western Kentucky
- Georgia State
- Texas State

Other FCS Reportedly Contemplating FBS
- Appalachian State
- Georgia Southern
- Delaware
- Villanova

[iherdya]

Pressing the point... Herdya or anyone else can answer...

Who are the seven schools from among these in the pool who you believe would be elevated to Big East ahead of Marshall?

(Remember, the premise... Big East and MWC realize they can only get the distribution they want if they expand to 32 schools to get the votes necessary... Houston, SMU, Tulsa and UTEP end up in MWC... leaving Big East to need 7 to make it to 16.)

Current CUSA members
- Southern Mississippi
- Alabama - Birmingham
- Rice

Future CUSA members
- Texas - San Antonio
- Louisiana Tech
- FIU
- FAU
- Middle Tennessee State
- Charlotte
- Old Dominion

Other Sun Belt
- Arkansas State
- Louisiana - Monroe
- Louisiana - Lafayette
- Troy
- South Alabama
- Western Kentucky
- Georgia State
- Texas State

Other FCS Reportedly Contemplating FBS
- Appalachian State
- Georgia Southern
- Delaware
- Villanova

The BE, right now needs, 5. I'd say that USM, UAB, Georgia State, UMass, Villanova, ODU, UNCC would likely be picked ahead of us. I know that sounds crazy, especially GSU, Umass, Villanova, ODU, and UNCC, but Tulane got picked ahead of us largely because of their academics and the NOLA market. While, no one in their right mind would actually think GSU would deliver it, they are in the Atlanta market. Umass has the Boston market. Villanova in Philly, though Temple may veto/cancel them out. ODU is an up and coming program, in the Tidewater area. UNCC hasn't played a down of football, but has had some basketball success and is in the Charlotte market.

[_sturt_]

The BE, right now needs, 5. I'd say that USM, UAB, Georgia State, UMass, Villanova, ODU, UNCC would likely be picked ahead of us. I know that sounds crazy, especially GSU, Umass, Villanova, ODU, and UNCC, but Tulane got picked ahead of us largely because of their academics and the NOLA market. While, no one in their right mind would actually think GSU would deliver it, they are in the Atlanta market. Umass has the Boston market. Villanova in Philly, though Temple may veto/cancel them out. ODU is an up and coming program, in the Tidewater area. UNCC hasn't played a down of football, but has had some basketball success and is in the Charlotte market.

(Forgot UMass... good pick-up... and Army, too.)

Wow. Really. Hmmm.

We have a very different idea about Marshall's place in the FBS hierarchy.

Sounds like what I might think a WVU fan would consider it to be.

[iherdya]

(Forgot UMass... good pick-up... and Army, too.)

Wow. Really. Hmmm.

We have a very different idea about Marshall's place in the FBS hierarchy.

Sounds like what I might think a WVU fan would consider it to be.

Just ask yourself this: What does Marshall bring to the table to the nBE?

Our media market isn't terrible, but it's not great (would fall below all the teams listed above, except USM). Our athletic budget would be near the bottom of the nBE. In terms of the public institutions in the nBE we'd be at the bottom. Our academics aren't terrible, but only average. We've had some great success in football, but we've also had some horrendous years and a whole bunch of mediocre years.

It's not putting Marshall down, but it's a realistic look at where we are as a University, athletic department, and football program. Some of which we can control, some of which we can't, and it seems like the top factor in the conference realignment falls within the "things we can't control" category.

[_sturt_]

Just ask yourself this: What does Marshall bring to the table to the nBE?

Hold up.

It's not what does Marshall bring to the table, but what does Marshall bring to the table in comparison to the other possibilities.

- Indeed, our media market is mid-sixties... just a few slots below New Orleans, in fact. And unlike some of the markets you've mentioned, Marshall is one of only two Division I schools actually situated in the market... we receive regular attention on practically every newscast, whereas it's no big deal in Atlanta if Georgia State isn't mentioned for days.

- Our athletic budget is competitive with any of the other candidates... hence the broadly proclaimed premise that in the new Sun Belt we're going to be with schools more like our own.

- Academics are only important to the degree that they are either a giant positive, having gained some national reputation on that basis (Tulane), or a giant negative. Of the schools you suggest are ahead of us, I'm not aware of any reason why any of those are considered extremely far or below us academically.

- On the field/court, we have competed in recent years with the nBE schools and it is fair to consider us the quintessential middling school--never the worst, but never the best.

- A "realistic look" at Marshall cannot ignore that Marshall brings a national name that, of the schools you rank above us, only Southern Miss can compete with... and the fact that there is a feature film that even casual football fans have watched probably sets us comfortably above even USM.

(I live in Texas, and I can't tell you how many times I've heard, "Ohhhh.... yeah, Marshall. I saw that movie.")

herdya, it's one thing to think we're stuck where we're at and that we need to learn to be content.

It's another thing to think we'd be stuck that far down the list if opportunities arose.

I know you want to be the voice of reason here, but I think your position falls pretty far short of realistic.

[wferg]

Just ask yourself this: What does Marshall bring to the table to the nBE?

Our media market isn't terrible, but it's not great (would fall below all the teams listed above, except USM). Our athletic budget would be near the bottom of the nBE. In terms of the public institutions in the nBE we'd be at the bottom. Our academics aren't terrible, but only average. We've had some great success in football, but we've also had some horrendous years and a whole bunch of mediocre years.

It's not putting Marshall down, but it's a realistic look at where we are as a University, athletic department, and football program. Some of which we can control, some of which we can't, and it seems like the top factor in the conference realignment falls within the "things we can't control" category.

You should be slammed with negative karma for saying all of this.  Oh there is no more karma. 

Actually you hit nail on the head.

I think the media market is possibly the hardest thing to control and maybe hurts the most, but other things can be worked on.  It would be nice for MU to get a deep pocket donoron board too.