Comments on: BCS Revenue Sharing Distribution http://moondogsports.com/2009/11/05/bcs-revenue-sharing-distribution/ MoonDog Sports, your source for the latest sports news, celebrities, entertainment news, weird news, supermodels and politics. Thu, 09 Feb 2012 15:14:29 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Joel http://moondogsports.com/2009/11/05/bcs-revenue-sharing-distribution/comment-page-1/#comment-8231 Joel Wed, 23 Dec 2009 20:20:38 +0000 http://moondogsports.com/?p=9922#comment-8231 1) I think you forgot to read the part in your own article where you said this, "You might be surprised to learn the non-Automatic Qualifying conferences received more money from BCS bowl games in 2008 than did the six power conferences." If you wanted to be honest in this statement instead for fudging it you would say this, "One team, the conference champion, of one power conference will make less money than all teams in all non AQ conferences combined. 2) You like to compare apples to oranges by comparing one teams revenue to all non-AQ conferences. At the end of the article you say revenues look like this: "1. Non-AQ conferences $19.3 million 2. AQ conferences $17.8". This isn't true. Again you combined all revenue for all non BCS conferences to the revenue brought in by one team from one AQ conference. If you actually wanted to compare apples to apples the numbers would have been: 1. AQ Conferences: $123,450,000 2. Non-aq conferences $19,300,000 3) Lets look at the average BCS conference revenue vs. all non-AQ revenue combined. 1. AQ Confernces $123,450,000 / 6 = $20,575,000 per AQ conference. 2. Non-AQ conferences combined: $19,300,000. This shows the average BCS AQ conference payout is higher than all non AQ conference payouts combined. 4) $19.3 million / 5 = $3.86 million average payout per non-AQ conference. Compare this the the $20.575 million average payout for BCS conferences. Let me restate to make sure you don't twist words like you did to the last poster. Without twisting words or lying the following statement in your article is false. "You might be surprised to learn the non-Automatic Qualifying conferences received more money from BCS bowl games in 2008 than did the six power conferences." Just because you compare apples to oranges to make it look that way doesn't mean it's true. Below are the actual revenue distributions by conference for 2008. As you can see, the MWC conference champion got paid 1/2 what a big six conference champion. 2008 BCS Revenue by conference: Big Ten (22,824,992) Southeastern (22,824,992) Big XII (22,824,992) Big East (18,324,992) ACC (18,324,992) Pac Ten (18,324,992) Mountain West (9,572,800) Western Athletic (3,224,000) CUSA (2,657,600) Mid American (2,094,400) Sun Belt (1,529,600) One more point. Did you know that all the employee salaries at AT&T combined add up to be more than the CEO makes. Therefore, the employees of AT&T make more money than their CEO. I had no idea they paid AT&T employees so much. I wonder why people think their CEO makes so much money? I figured this out using your logic. 1) I think you forgot to read the part in your own article where you said this, “You might be surprised to learn the non-Automatic Qualifying conferences received more money from BCS bowl games in 2008 than did the six power conferences.” If you wanted to be honest in this statement instead for fudging it you would say this, “One team, the conference champion, of one power conference will make less money than all teams in all non AQ conferences combined.
2) You like to compare apples to oranges by comparing one teams revenue to all non-AQ conferences. At the end of the article you say revenues look like this: “1. Non-AQ conferences $19.3 million 2. AQ conferences $17.8″. This isn’t true. Again you combined all revenue for all non BCS conferences to the revenue brought in by one team from one AQ conference. If you actually wanted to compare apples to apples the numbers would have been: 1. AQ Conferences: $123,450,000 2. Non-aq conferences $19,300,000
3) Lets look at the average BCS conference revenue vs. all non-AQ revenue combined. 1. AQ Confernces $123,450,000 / 6 = $20,575,000 per AQ conference. 2. Non-AQ conferences combined: $19,300,000. This shows the average BCS AQ conference payout is higher than all non AQ conference payouts combined.
4) $19.3 million / 5 = $3.86 million average payout per non-AQ conference. Compare this the the $20.575 million average payout for BCS conferences.
Let me restate to make sure you don’t twist words like you did to the last poster. Without twisting words or lying the following statement in your article is false. “You might be surprised to learn the non-Automatic Qualifying conferences received more money from BCS bowl games in 2008 than did the six power conferences.” Just because you compare apples to oranges to make it look that way doesn’t mean it’s true.
Below are the actual revenue distributions by conference for 2008. As you can see, the MWC conference champion got paid 1/2 what a big six conference champion.

2008 BCS Revenue by conference:
Big Ten (22,824,992)
Southeastern (22,824,992)
Big XII (22,824,992)
Big East (18,324,992)
ACC (18,324,992)
Pac Ten (18,324,992)
Mountain West (9,572,800)
Western Athletic (3,224,000)
CUSA (2,657,600)
Mid American (2,094,400)
Sun Belt (1,529,600)

One more point. Did you know that all the employee salaries at AT&T combined add up to be more than the CEO makes. Therefore, the employees of AT&T make more money than their CEO. I had no idea they paid AT&T employees so much. I wonder why people think their CEO makes so much money? I figured this out using your logic.

]]> By: MoonDog http://moondogsports.com/2009/11/05/bcs-revenue-sharing-distribution/comment-page-1/#comment-7579 MoonDog Mon, 09 Nov 2009 05:12:25 +0000 http://moondogsports.com/?p=9922#comment-7579 If you'll note, which you apparently didn't, I used "conferences" in the plural to indicate all non-automatic qualifiers. I also included a paragraph - again which you obviously didn't read - indicating that the monies represented for the non-aq and automatic qualifiers was divided evenly among the teams representing each conference. In other words, you wasted a lot of time. If you’ll note, which you apparently didn’t, I used “conferences” in the plural to indicate all non-automatic qualifiers. I also included a paragraph – again which you obviously didn’t read – indicating that the monies represented for the non-aq and automatic qualifiers was divided evenly among the teams representing each conference.

In other words, you wasted a lot of time.

]]> By: RealityCheck http://moondogsports.com/2009/11/05/bcs-revenue-sharing-distribution/comment-page-1/#comment-7577 RealityCheck Mon, 09 Nov 2009 04:40:45 +0000 http://moondogsports.com/?p=9922#comment-7577 The figures posted are incomplete and misleading. They are corrected below....changes in all caps. This is the breakdown of BCS Revenue Sharing Distribution for the 2008 season. The 2009 revenue distribution is expected to be similar. 1. Non-Automatic Qualifying Conferences – $19.3 million TOTAL DIVIDED BETWEEN THE 5 NON-BCS CONFERENCES. 2. Automatic Qualifying Conferences – $17.8 million FOR EACH OF THE 6 BCS CONFERENCES. 3. Football Championship Subdivision (Formally Division 1-AA conferences) – $1.8 million. 4. Notre Dame – $1.3 million. 5. Each conference with two teams in the BCS – $4.5 million. 6. Army and Navy – $100,000 each. The figures posted are incomplete and misleading. They are corrected below….changes in all caps.

This is the breakdown of BCS Revenue Sharing Distribution for the 2008 season. The 2009 revenue distribution is expected to be similar.

1. Non-Automatic Qualifying Conferences – $19.3 million TOTAL DIVIDED BETWEEN THE 5 NON-BCS CONFERENCES.

2. Automatic Qualifying Conferences – $17.8 million FOR EACH OF THE 6 BCS CONFERENCES.

3. Football Championship Subdivision (Formally Division 1-AA conferences) – $1.8 million.

4. Notre Dame – $1.3 million.

5. Each conference with two teams in the BCS – $4.5 million.

6. Army and Navy – $100,000 each.

]]> By: Straitpinkie.com Presents the Best Links from the Web | straitpinkie.com http://moondogsports.com/2009/11/05/bcs-revenue-sharing-distribution/comment-page-1/#comment-7534 Straitpinkie.com Presents the Best Links from the Web | straitpinkie.com Thu, 05 Nov 2009 17:51:13 +0000 http://moondogsports.com/?p=9922#comment-7534 [...] BCS Revenue Sharing Distribution (MoonDog Sports) [...] [...] BCS Revenue Sharing Distribution (MoonDog Sports) [...]

]]>