ProveIt

At the recent IMG Intercollegiate Athletics Forum, NCAA leaders sat on a panel.  The ensuing discussion became much more than the typical polite exchanges.
From their comments at the forum and elsewhere arise several lines drawn in the sand on a range of topics.
In Part 1, we reviewed the position of the NCAA and the BCS position on mid majors/
In Part 2, we reviewed their position on a post BCS landscape.
In Part 3, we reviewed a playoff isn’t an option.
In Part 4, we learned no conference opposes a seeded 4 format, they oppose the inevitable larger formats.

A playoff would earn more revenue than the BCS
ACC Commissioner John Swofford In and of itself, a playoff of some type would generate more money than the current BCS.

This  is no secret Every commissioner has voiced similar comments.
This isn’t a surprise After all the BCS could be made more profitable by adding more games.

Playoffs earn less in terms of the entire season and all revenue sources
PAC 10 Commissioner Larry Scott College football is so popular today because we have a great regular season and because we have an important bowl tradition that provides a meaningful experience for the students and fans -- all of which would be at risk if this concept were implemented.
We have to think what a 16-team would look like, the effects on regular season and bowl system.   It's a pretty easy call that no one wants to go down that path.
ACC Commissioner John Swofford What would be the effect on the regular season?  What about the effect on the other bowls?  But the BCS is certainly healthy financially and has been from the beginning.

The most obvious hit is to the other bowls
Big East Commissioner John Marinatto The opportunities we have in bowls across the country would lose the interest and value they currently have.
Big 12 Commissioner Dan Beebe I don’t think the bowls are going to exist (with a playoff)… once you create that level… if you are Oklahoma State fan, why am I going to go down to the Alamo bowl?...
ACC Commissioner John Swofford Sponsorships and TV revenue that now go to bowl games would instead be spent on playoff games, meaning that it will be very difficult for any bowl, including the current BCS bowls, which are among the oldest and most established in the game's history, to survive.

A seeded 4 is only 1 more game.  It is small enough not to detract attention from other bowl games.  It only draws the top end sponsors leaving sponsors of other bowls substantially intact.  It spans as little as 2 weeks of the season leaving a spotlight on the other bowls.
A seeded 8 encompasses 7 games (nearly 20% of the NCAAF post season) drawing a lot of interest from the other bowls.  Unlike the BCS where the games occur at the very end, it draws attention from the other bowls over a 3+ week period.

Most Bowls exist on the margin of profitability or lose money requiring a subsidy from the local government.  Minor bowls can readily find a broadcast carrier, but large sponsors are still needed to balance the books, and they are becoming harder and harder to locate.  Most have difficulty selling out the stadium (even the Orange bowl) as venues often go partially filled.
Host cities can afford a minor loss they recoup thru tax revenue as local businesses receiving a boost from fans and publicity.  They improve the gains by making bowls a weeklong event with rallies, press days, fan days, etc. but there are limits… fans are shortening their stays and spending less.  Even if the economy wasn’t down, there are limits how much subsidy a local government can provide.

Most conferences collect the appearance fee, pay the participants a stipend, and share the rest providing a benefit for all teams.
Bowl participants expenses are almost always over $1 Million, but last year 16 bowls had payouts from $1.25 million to $300 thousand – below the team’s expenses.  Expenses could be dropped by decreasing the length of the stay and decreasing the number of motel rooms (most teams are required to buy more than they use) but only at the expense of the bowl host city.  The teams and universities profit financially, but the gains come from increased donations resulting from the increased exposure.
The teams gain from exposure in recruiting and an opportunity to practice several weeks longer helping future years.
The athletes gain from a great experience and for those with NFL hopes, a last chance to spotlight their skills.

Networks. commissioners, and universities agree a playoff would diminish the bowls
Diminishing or losing the bowls, even just the minor bowls, would diminish the experience and/or finances of the conferences, programs, host cities, businesses, athletes, and fans.  It isn’t just the appearance fees paid by the current bowls that would be threatened; a valid comparison includes the peripheral money raised from boosters and corporate sponsors.

In Part 6, we will look at the playoff’s impact on the regular season.
For a list of references, see Line in the Sand Part 1

At the recent IMG Intercollegiate Athletics Forum, NCAA leaders sat on a panel.  The ensuing discussion became much more than the typical polite exchanges.
From their comments at the forum and elsewhere arise several lines drawn in the sand on a range of topics.
In Part 1, we viewed the position of the NCAA and the BCS position on mid majors.
In Part 2, we viewed their position on a post BCS landscape.
In Part 3, we viewed a playoff isn’t an option.

Surprise - No conference is opposed to a seeded 4 playoff format
Big Ten Commissioner Jim Delany I'm not morally, philosophically opposed to one and two… I'm not morally, philosophically opposed to four.
If the face of playoff opposition Jim Delany says its fine, then why not?

The issue lies in the history of playoff expansion
The BCS AQ commissioners say they're less likely now to be in favor of a "Plus One" model for fear that would ultimately lead to a full-blown, 16-team playoff.  (As noted in part 2, plus 1 really means seeded 4 thanks to some shenanigans by Silve and Swafford.)
Big Ten Commissioner Jim Delany history informs you the best way to think about the future…  every small incremental step has led to an incremental step; not only inside the NCAA, but inside the NFL, NBA, Major League Baseball.
Plus One would lead to four, six, eight, 12 and, ultimately, a 16-team playoff and said the pressure to increase the number of teams would come from everywhere – the NCAA, Congress, the public and the fan bases.

In every other sport, and even in football at other levels, every playoff has grown in size.  That is the playoff history and the only reason the majors won’t adopt a seeded 4.

The major’s commissioners don’t see it as a choice between the BCS and a seeded 4; they see it as a choice between the BCS and larger format playoffs.

1 voice disputes this belief
SEC Commissioner Mike Silve What the concern that has always been expressed is 'bracket creep' is endemic.  That has been the history of all championships, particularly those governed by the NCAA. The differentiating factor here is the BCS is not governed by the pressures for bracket expansion.

Apparently Silve is on an island.  Swafford no longer voices support for a playoff.  In the SEC you won’t find a single statement confirming a majority of the Presidents would vote in favor of a playoff in any format. They will make individual statements when nothing is on the line and it favors their press (UGa President when his team was left out) but not a single statement saying the majority favors a playoff.

In comparing the arguments it is the historic absolute of playoff expansion –vs- Silve stating NCAAF is different.   It isn’t surprising a University President’s decision would follow history.

After you clear issues listed for anti-trust laws (extending the season, etc.), you arrive at the core issue standing in the way of a seeded 4 playoff – valid expectations it would expand to a larger format.  Other concerns, while they may be valid, are not the insurmountable obstacles.

In Part 5, we look at why the commissioners are opposed to a playoff format larger than 4 teams.
For a list of references, see Line in the Sand Part 1

At the recent IMG Intercollegiate Athletics Forum, NCAA leaders sat on a panel.  The ensuing discussion became much more than the typical polite exchanges.
From their comments at the forum and elsewhere arise several lines drawn in the sand on a range of topics.
In Part 1, we reviewed the position of the NCAA and the BCS position on mid majors.
In Part 2, we reviewed their position on a post BCS landscape.

Line #4 – Playoffs aren’t a consideration
The BCS AQ commissioners say they're less likely now to be in favor of a "Plus One" model for fear that would ultimately lead to a full-blown, 16-team playoff.
Big 12 Commissioner Dan Beebe I don’t like it for football…  it isn’t like some of these other (mid major) programs that want us to have a playoff so they can get the notoriety and money from us, we have kids playing in a high pressure situation week after week…
Big East Commissioner John Marinatto We've talked about them all since (the BCS) was created, all the different models, but when you apply them; none of them achieve the current benefits without sacrificing something.
PAC 10 Commissioner Larry Scott while it's "easy to poke holes" in the BCS format, a playoff would hurt college football's regular season.
ACC Commissioner John Swofford But what would be the effect on the regular season?  What about the effect on the other bowls?  But the BCS is certainly healthy financially and has been from the beginning.
Sponsorships and TV revenue that now go to bowl games would instead be spent on playoff games, meaning that it will be very difficult for any bowl, including the current BCS bowls, which are among the oldest and most established in the game's history, to survive.
Big Ten Commissioner Jim Delany We're not winning the PR war… but we do have a great regular season, a great bowl season and the 1-2 game.  We don't have an NFL style or college basketball style playoff.  I get that people want it.

There isn’t any major conference supporting a playoff
BCS Executive Director Bill Hancock The consensus of all of the schools in the 11 conferences support the BCS.  There are some who have said they would rather do something else. But it’s a small percentage... it does preserve the importance of the regular season.  And it does preserve the bowl system... I don’t see the universities changing their minds about a playoff or about the BCS system.

When the SEC put forth the original proposal in April 2008, the PAC and Big Ten immediately announced opposition, the Big 12 and East waited until the meeting to announce they had taken a poll months earlier and were opposed.  The mid majors didn’t comment, but it is unlikely the MAC, CUSA, or Sun favored a seeded 4 (when was the last time they had a team in the top 4?).

The SEC and ACC said they “…were anxious to bring the model to our conference for discussion.”
What?  They propose a seeded 4 and call it a plus 1 (when someone redefines common terms it should set off red flags).  There was a flood of publicity to be gained by any conference supporting a playoff, the other majors had reached a decision, but the 2 conferences proposing the change have no idea what their members think?  I smell a couple of rats, but the cheese these rats are headlines and press.

Don’t believe me?  Do a search and find where any major announced their conference would support a seeded 4 (plus 1) playoff – the most you will find is 2 commissioners, the WAC, and the MWC.

In Part 4, we will look at why the majors oppose a playoff.
For a list of references, see Line in the Sand Part 1

At the recent IMG Intercollegiate Athletics Forum, NCAA leaders sat on a panel.  The ensuing discussion became much more than the typical polite exchanges.
From their comments at the forum and elsewhere arise several lines drawn in the sand on a range of topics.
In Part 1, we reviewed the position of the NCAA and the BCS position on mid majors.

Line #3 – The only alternative to the BCS is the bowl tie in system
Big 12 Commissioner Dan Beebe We are less close (to a playoff) I think more of our people are getting so frustrated by those in the other levels who want to get our access and our money that we are more likely to go back to the old bowl system and say “Lets just go have a good time” and let the pundits decide.
Big East Commissioner John Marinatto You see what's going on with Congress in regards to the playoffs, and you know how the schools and conferences across the country feel relative to that issue.   At some point or another, I think people are going to be going back to the old system.   If there are two choices on the table (playoffs or old system), I think they'll go back to the old system.
Big Ten Commissioner Jim Delany The only thing I would say, if you think you (mid majors) can continue to pressure the system and we'll just naturally provide more and more and more, I don't think that's an assumption that our presidents, athletic directors, football coaches and commissioners necessarily agree with.

They aren’t bluffing  - the BCS isn’t as far beyond the old system as we would think for most majors.
1. 3 majors would garner 2 tie ins to the top 4 bowls (SEC, Big Ten, Big 12).  The appearance fee from 2 top bowls is substantial.
2. With the Rose accounting for 25-30% of the BCS revenue and a 2nd BCS invite a rarity for the PAC, they haven’t seen a financial boost from the BCS.
3. With no need to share $$$ with the mid-majors, Big East, etc. the other majors can take a 30% drop in revenue and still come out the same.
4. They gain freedom from defending the BCS to playoff proponents, threatened lawsuits, congressional hearings. (4 so far)
5. They can concentrate on promoting their other bowl tie-ins which gain in stature.
6. Without a NCG, the other BCS bowls gain in interest (and in NCAAF math, interest = money)

In Part 3, we will see why a playoff isn't on the table.
For a list of references, see Lines in the Sand Part 1

At the recent IMG Intercollegiate Athletics Forum the NCAA President, Commissioners from 5 major conferences, and the Commissioner from the WAC sat on a panel.  The ensuing discussion became much more than the typical polite exchanges.
From their comments at the forum and elsewhere arise several lines drawn in the sand.

Line #1 – The NCAA won’t get involved in the NCAAF post season anymore
The NCAA last stepped in when they pushed to expand the BCS to 5 games and lower the requirements for a mid major to receive an automatic bid.  This looks to be the extent of NCAA involvement as they return to their limited involvement in the NCAAF post season.

NCAA president Mark Emmert That's not a train I'm driving.
Translation – the NCAA is staying out of the NCAAF post season.

Line #2 – No more BCS concessions to the mid majors
Big 12 Commissioner Dan Beebe to the mid majors Don't push it past this because if you push it past this, the Big 12's position is we'll just go back to the old system.  You're getting the ability to get to places you've never gotten before. We've Jerry-rigged the free market system to the benefit of those institutions and a lot are institutions that don't even fill their stadiums.
PAC 10 Commissioner Larry Scott The six conferences have bent over backwards and tried to be politically correct to their own detriment, probably further than they had to, maybe should have.
ACC Commissioner John Swofford in response to the BCS helping the majors more than mid major  I think it is fair, because it represents the marketplace.  Every conference has more access into the highest level of bowl games and potentially the national championship game than ever before.
Big Ten Commissioner Jim Delany at the IMG forum  The notion that over time by putting political pressure on, it's just going to get greater access, more financial reward and more access to the Rose Bowl, I think you're really testing. I think people who have contributed a lot have, what I call, 'BCS defense fatigue.'
Some of us (referring to mid majors) don't have a great investment in the regular season.  If you look at attendance, you look at television, tradition, you look at the kind of matchups we have – there's no doubt about it…
We gave up the Rose Bowl, the SEC gave up access to the Sugar Bowl, others (mid majors) were included but they never had access to any of this before.  You have to understand who brought what to the table. Who's continuing to give and who's continuing to get.
I'm not sure how much more give there is in the system.
The only thing I would say, if you think you (mid majors) can continue to pressure the system and we'll just naturally provide more and more and more, I don't think that's an assumption that our presidents, athletic directors, football coaches and commissioners necessarily agree with.

I don’t have a problem with this – the BCS has a fair set of criteria derived from entities outside the majors by which any conference can earn AQ status – a conference doesn’t even have to be inside the top half, 6th out of 11 will do.  There is also criteria the AQ conferences have to maintain or face losing their AQ status.

The BCS and the major’s commissioners have spent a lot of time and energy in 4 congressional hearings and faced numerous lawsuit threats (that never come to fruition).  So far they have played along, but now appear to be taking a different approach – one of frankness and blunt honesty…
1 - The BCS has provided the mid majors bowl access they wouldn't enjoy otherwise.
2 - The BCS has provided the mid majors a revenue stream they wouldn't have otherwise.
3 - The BCS has provided a path for mid major conferences to earn auotmatic invites to the major bowls their fan bases and interest wouldn't otherwise merit.
4 - The majors have brought access and audiences while sharing the revenue.  The mid majors have collected these benefits while bringing congressional hearings and the threat of lawsuits to boost their small audiences and limited interest (as measured in TV ratings) - not exactly even.
5 - At least 3 of the majors project that any additional concessions would result in the old system (conference tie-ins) being more profitable than the BCS (detailed in later parts).

In Part 2. we see the majors aren't reluctant to pull the plug on the BCS and return to the conference tie-in structure.

References for all parts
Dan Beebe Broadcast
http://espn.go.com/espnradio/player
?rd=1#/podcenter/?autoplay=1&id=4752760&callsign=ESPNRADIO

 John Marinatto Interviews
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/20
09/writers/stewart_mandel/07/10/mar
inatto-q-a/index.html
http://blog.al.com/solomon/2009/09/
qa_with_big_east_commissioner.html

 IMG Articles
http://ncaafootball.fanhouse.com/20
10/12/10/a-plus-one-playoff-is-unli
kely/
http://ncaafootball.fanhouse.com/20
10/12/09/jim-delany-warns-non-aq-le
agues-dont-expect-more-than-youre/

 Bill Hancock Comments
http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2010
/dec/16/college-football-will-mark-
cuban-bankroll-bcs-bust/

 John Swofford Interviews
http://www.realclearsports.com/list
s/John_Swofford/financial_reasons_b
cs.html
http://auburnfootballfanforum.yuku.
com/topic/11186/t/Congress-wants-pl
ayoffs-instead-of-BCS.html
http://www.allstatesugarbowl.org/si
te127.php

 Mike Silve Interviews
http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/footba
ll/blog/dr_saturday/post/Wait-so-th
e-BCS-is-not-about-the-money-now-?urn=ncaaf-175959

 2008 Playoff Proposal
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/20
08/writers/stewart_mandel/04/30/bcs
.meeting/index.html 

Big Ten expansion is driven by revenue.  Updating my original notes with some research by BrendonTi, here is the best current and projected revenue breakdown I can find.  I am using 2016 as the future projection date - this is when the existing broadcast contracts for football and basketball run out and new contracts take effect.  (The BTN contract runs much longer.)

6% to 8% per year growth is common throughout this discussion.  This is derived from the amount NCAAF broadcast contracts have been increasing.  This can be tracked to the growing NCAAF audience (about 3% to 4% a year) and average inflation (about 3% to 4% a year).  This audience growth is on the low side based on recent articles I could google.

These estimates do not include gains from expansion except for the CCG.  In the case of Nebraska their gains will not significantly impact shared revenue until 2016 – their financial gains falls outside shared revenue.

BTN Licensing Fee currently $5.45 Million
$60 Million yearly is paid by the BTN to the Big Ten before splitting network profits and is not to be confused with the subscription fees collected from cable carriers.  Delany and the Illini AD noted the Big Ten has been in negotiations with the broadcasters during expansion.  Unlike situations with ESPN where they already own rights to teams in other conferences, adding teams to the Big Ten represents a new audience to Fox.  I do not know how this is structured - it may be fixed over the duration of the contract, or it may go up each year.  I am going with the more conservative former estimate:
Projected $5.45 Million (low estimate)

BTN Shared Revenue currently $6.5 Million
Estimates I could find projected this to increase $2-4 Million from 2010 to 2013 (4 years).  I am going to be conservative and estimate growth of $1-2 Million for 2014 to 2016 (3 years) since applying an inflation rate would not be accurate as it does not capture the license fee or network operating costs.
Projected $9.5-12.5 Million (accurate to low)

FB and BB Broadcast Contracts currently $8.43 Million
The 10 year NCAAF contract is for $1 Billion total ($9.09 Million a year average) and the BB contract $20 Million total (a paltry $.18 Million average).
The 10 year average is about $9.27 Million a year.
Contracts have been increasing an average of 6% to 8% a year.  I use the more readily available average over the lifetime of the contract, and the current contract length of 10 years.
Projected $16.6-19.93 Million (accurate for average, high for 2016)

Shared BCS and Bowl Revenue currently $1.98 Million
I am going to use the 6% to 8% a year increase over 7 years.
Projected $2.97 to $3.39 Million (accurate)

Basketball Tourney currently $350K/team
I don't know the revenue growth of NCAABB. so I am going very low here.
Projected $400K (low)

Update Conference Championship Game $2.08 Million
The Big Ten is maximizing CCG revenue by marketing it seperate from the broadcast contract. 
5 year broadcast deal for an escalating amount from $20 to $25 Million.  This includes sponsorship and advertising rights.
Indianapolis is reported to have paid $5 Million to host the game.  I believe this includes ticket sales.  I will lowball the estimate and make this amount constant.
Projected $2.5 Million (low estimate)


Total Current Shared Revenue $22.8 Million per team per year (excludes CCG)
Total 2016 Projections $37.4 to $44.2 Million per team per year (including CCG)
This is a low to accurate estimate before expansion, definitely low after expansion.

Some References
Big Ten (Network) bonanza
Big Ten Conference on Television 
Big Ten’s title game rights to hit market 
I could not locate all of the references – they are buried behind literally millions of google links now.

This is everything I could gather and decipher concerning the site's reputation system.  If anyone has any additional insight on the rating system, please post below and I will include here, shamelessly taking full credit for your discovery (just kidding – full credit will be given).

The 4 Reputation Elements  (Connections, Value, Participation, and Skill) are a ranked list of all users.  Each element is relative to other users, listed by percentage.  The index is your position among all users - 68 means you are higher than 68% of the site members. 

This is why:
-Everyone active has a participation in the 90s – there are lots of zeros in the scale from people who have left the site.
-It is easy to get big reputation gains as a noobie (you are jumping over inactive users) but progress slows later (you are compared to people who post all of the time).
-It is hard to decipher – the scales are unknown, non-linear. and change daily.
-Many stall in the low 90s – there are a lot of people grouped in the range of 220-260, lots of inactive accounts below this.

Reputation Index  is the sum of the 4 reputation elements.  It is a comparison of your total against other users.  The index has a limit on the rate of increase for new accounts - the fastest a noobie can reach 99 is about 2 months from your initial comment.  The time limit does not start until you begin posting comments.

This scale changes daily.  Right now you need about 200 to be a Superstar, 350 to be in the top 1000.

You can get an estimate of the total you need to obtain a given reputation index.  Locate several users who have nearly constant values in their 4 elements and reputation for 2 months, and a reputation in the range you are targeting below 97.  Add up the total of their 4 elements and you have an idea of what total you need to be to achieve the same reputation!  Exceptions were discovered among people who had low value but high skill indexes – we could not determine what caused this.

1. Connections are the sum of the reputations of people who list you as a favorite member.  The more who list you as a favorite, the higher your connections index.  Being listed by someone with a low reputation will still improve your connections.  The site limits you to 150 people in your favorites, but you can exceed this as described in the blog linked to below:
How to Exceed the 150 Favorites Limit

To add some one as a favorite, go to their profile page and click on Add Favorite in the top right corner.  Page thru your connections regularly, adding anyone who lists you as a favorite (otherwise they will get annoyed and drop you as a favorite).  When you add someone as a favorite, be patient – it may be some time before they scan thru their favorites to return the favor.  (I usually give them at least a month).

Bloggers are good source of favorites (bloggers need love too).  They can still use a boost to maintain their reputation index, and having their blogs appear in the profile of others helps promote their hobby.  Be certain to leave a nice comment to attract their attention.

Check your "Reviews Of" in your profile.  If someone is reviewing a lot of your comments over time or are part of an ongoing discussion, they will probably reciprocate a favorites addition (you aren't just another Avatar).

Boost Your Connection/Favorites Threads provide a location where participants mutually add each other as a favorite.  If you start a thread some suggestions are in the 1^st comments of this blog.  If you start a thread in a new section or know of a thread not listed below, post the link below and I will add it to this list of existing threads:
Off Topic Boost your connections rating!!
College Football Boost your value today
MLB Add Value And Favorites To Your Profile

2. Value is the total of all ratings a user gets across all their content divided by the number of posts made by that user.  I believe the system goes back over all of the contents for the previous 30 days, but could be as long as 90.  You can rate comments up to 30 days old.

Rating  =  reputation of the reviewer (0-100)  x  rating (1-5)  x  scale  x  content weight

The scale is the average score the reviewer uses. Users that give everyone 5 stars will have their 5s worth 2.5 stars only. If you only value comments a 5, you might as well continue because the system will adjust whatever your rate to average 2.5 anyway – vsarying the rating won’t make a difference to the avrage score you give.

Getting a low score (1 star) will not drop your comment value (a 1 is still better than no rating).  Giving a low rating to troll comments will still boost the author's score.

Each type of content has a content weight - blogs have a content weight of 9 while messages have a weight of 5.

The site notes objectively rating others' content will help your reputation, rating content in a haphazard or contrary manner will hurt your reputation.  I have seen absolutely no evidence this is true – I suspect it is an attempt to discourage retaliatory scoring or value threads (viva la revolution!).

Comment Score is not part of the value calculation.  It is used for placement in the listings.  Achieving a high or low comment score has no effect on your value index.  It appears to be a function of the the author's reputaion, grammar (a series of exclamation marks drops the score), spelling, use of obscenities, paragraph foramtting (1 paragraph scores higher), and overall length.  Since it doesn't matter, I didn't break it down further.

For the hard core (noobs looking to boost their value while they build up their other elementsd and those looking to be in the Top 1000) find a group where they mutually agree to rate each other’s comments.  This involves going into their profile, viewing all of their comments, and rating every one a 5.  It is very effective, but it is time consuming.  If participants are in each other’s favorites, as their value (and reputation) goes up, your connections and reputation goes up as well.  This then boosts the connections and reputation of everyone who has you as a favorite, which then boosts your connections and reputation again.  The loop eventually dies out, but the impact increases the more common favorites there are in the group.

Boost your Value Threads provide a location where you post anything and everyone rates the comments a 5.  When you post go back at least 3 pages and hand out 5s to everyone else.  If you plan to participate heavily for a while, go back and rate every comment in the thread (you can go back 1 month).  If you plan to make a LOT of comments, spread yourself out among the different threads rather than create lots of comments in a single thread – it can take a long time for participants to rate every comment in a single thread.  If you start a thread in a new section of the site, post below and I will add it to this list of existing threads:
NCAABB NCAA BB Fives
College Football Boost your value today
College Football Looking To Boost Value???
Off Topic Boost you Value rating!!!
MLB Add Value And Favorites To Your Profile

3. Participation is so easy to get I didn’t bother to try to figure out its details.  Doing just about anything that leaves a foot print counts toward participation.  I think it is more related to how often you comment than many comments you leave.  So many accounts have been started and abandoned it doesn’t take a lot of effort to get participation in the 90s.

If you are busy or returning after an extended leave, I recommend posting in the “Boost Your Value” threads.

4. Skills are based on fantasy games.  Points are awarded at the end of the season, so they are a better tool for vets wanting to keep access rights than noobs.

Set up some fantasy teams in every free game if you followe the sport to see if you can get some easy points.  Even if you don't follow the football, NCAAF and BFL is very easy (I won the regular season with my fantasy NFL team even though I didn't watch a total of 10 minutes of NFL games all season!)  On the other hand, NBA and NHL is a bit more complicated so I abandoned these teams.

To access these, click on fantasy in the top left of the screen.  The site has an auto draft feature for fantasy teams used by some leagues, so you don’t have to know anything to participate – enter or start a rookie league that uses auto draft, set your starting roster, then you can forget about it.

The Top 1000 is a distinction for those with the highest total of all 4 categories – you will need to do well in all to make this level.   Last I checked, the threshold looks to be around a total of over 350.

I would suggest:  Max out connections and participation to 99 with the above hints including the procedure for exceeding the 150 favorites limit.  Max out value by joining with noobs to mutually value each others comments.  Take part in Boost Your Value threads.  Skill is no longer an option – if fantasy teams aren’t your thing, look for a rookie league to join, and follow the bloggers who give advice as their hobby.
Consider starting a 2nd account for commenting in threads and blogs since comments that do not receive a 5 star rating drop your vale index - you can make the new account identical to the old except for a minor change in the name spelling, and can even note it is a 2nd account profile so others know it is you.

Warnings and Reports limit your Reputation index if they are found valid, otherwise they make no difference.  If you are a superstar, 1 waring limits your reputation index to 94 (All Star), 3 limits you to 79 (Pro), 6 limits you to 49 (Amateur), and 9 limits you to 24 (Rookie) for 3 months.  No matter what you do, you cannot shorten this time span or get above the limit.  On the 1st day you drop to 0, but on the 2nd day it return to the new limit.  Making too many reports can result in your account being limited, but i do not know what the limit is. 

References
CBSSports.com redesign comments and answers
My Value is Going Down 
Rating Changes Effective Tomorrow
XxBronxBomberxX helped me crack the reputation threshold totals
C.Coolidge1933 detailed the warnings and reports penalty
orangemen90 helped me sort fact from "Urban Legend"
R.W. Chan is an administrator who verified the value rating system
dAdXeR is an administrator who helped with the comment score use