(04-12-2013 09:47 AM)cotton1991 Wrote:  

(04-12-2013 08:54 AM)Niner National Wrote:  

(04-12-2013 08:49 AM)_sturt_ Wrote:  http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2012/...ollow.html

The jump in revenue from 2000 to 2010 for top conferences is astonishing.

I honestly believe these contracts are unsustainable. More people are dropping cable and satellite every year. Some because they get get enough content to satisfy themselves online and some because the rates are simply going too high...largely driven by sports channels that are dishing out major contracts.

Could definitely be a bubble that bursts in the future.

For awhile, I've felt the same thing about conference realignment/TV deals/expansion, etc.

Everyone thinks that business model goes on forever driven by ever bigger pots of gold.

Sorta like . . . . . . the housing bubble that would never end.

So which schools start having to scramble for cash when the bubble bursts? I'm thinking urban schools that rely heavily on TV money. UH is the obvious one. Tulane has money of their own. Memphis and Cincy probably have enough good, non-TV basketball revenue to survive. UCF might be in danger, but I think they do an OK job selling football tickets.

I don't buy the total gloom and doom scenario. Recent comments by Marshall's AD indicate that our tv partners did not reduce the current contract amounts, which they could have done due to membership changes, and the tv partners are happy with the additions. Unless the market for live games bottoms out before our new contract negotiations, I believe it will remain relatively stable and possible go up some. With Fox (regionals - Sports 1 and Sports 2), CBS Sports, NBC Sports all still wanting/needing live sports content, we should do alright as a conference in 2015 when we work out new contracts. Wouldn't hurt the process at all if some of our teams in MBB and especially FB can make some noise.

Our last check for our TV share in the MAC back in 2004 was only $34,000. That is why we left.

(04-12-2013 09:14 AM)AndreWhere Wrote:  

(04-12-2013 08:53 AM)WKUFan518 Wrote:  One of the main reasons I look forward to being in this conf, was to be get away from being ESPN's *****....

It won't happen. There aren't any TV draws left in CUSA. The original members will be made whole by the defectors for five years, and after that it will be $0-per-year from ESPN with Thursday night games.

I'm sorry to have to say this. But all that's happened in FBS is that Louisville and TCU have moved up, and USM and a couple other schools have been shoved down. No one else's position in the overall landscape has changed or will change, outside these three schools.

Hate to break this to you but there were no tv draws in CUSA before the defections.

i'm fine with the cusa games on thursday/saturday...but i'm a north texas fan and am just excited to be in a conference with familiar names and close proximity. i understand that north texas will always be in the second tier (outside the elite conferences) and i'm ok with that. it's still my school, my football games, my athletics...the money will never be as big as other conferences...so be it...hopefully, the conference makes the most of their situation.

It's all relative, BleedsGreen. Memphis basketball was a TV draw. Houston, UCF, SMU, and Tulane probably lit up enough TVs in their area to make a difference. Looking at the additions, there are 3-4 that have market appeal, and 1-2 that have had basketball success. You might say, "well, there's not that much difference between ODU as a TV draw, and ECU as a TV draw," but the data don't support that. Look at the huge differences between mid-major conferences in 2010.

The best mid-majors were getting much more money than the worst... what's $1.5 million divided by $34,000? It's an even bigger proportion than SEC money divided by CUSA money would be.

I like the Marshall AD, but let's face it... among the things he's paid to do is to put the best possible face on things... looking more soberly at the facts of history, there has been a significant difference between what those schools that have been grouped together as CUSA have fetched at the TV bargaining table and what those grouped together as Sun Belt have fetched... and the schools with the most value have now defected to AAC, and in their place, you have essentially Sun Belt-quality schools.

If the al.com report is accurate, the new CUSA should expect about 1/16th of whatever TV revenue would have been coming to the old CUSA had there been no realignment.

Chew on that... 1/16th.

Sure, the holdovers are blessed with that guarantee that the defectors will make up the difference, but none of that will matter a few years from now.

CUSA has to be innovative. The gap between CUSA (and MAC) and the two top conferences (MWC and AAC) will only widen if they aren't actively pursuing ways to reduce that gap.

(04-12-2013 11:31 AM)_sturt_ Wrote:  I like the Marshall AD, but let's face it... among the things he's paid to do is to put the best possible face on things... looking more soberly at the facts of history, there has been a significant difference between what those schools that have been grouped together as CUSA have fetched at the TV bargaining table and what those grouped together as Sun Belt have fetched... and the schools with the most value have now defected to AAC, and in their place, you have essentially Sun Belt-quality schools.

If the al.com report is accurate, the new CUSA should expect about 1/16th of whatever TV revenue would have been coming to the old CUSA had there been no realignment.

Chew on that... 1/16th.

Sure, the holdovers are blessed with that guarantee that the defectors will make up the difference, but none of that will matter a few years from now.

CUSA has to be innovative. The gap between CUSA (and MAC) and the two top conferences (MWC and AAC) will only widen if they aren't actively pursuing ways to reduce that gap.

You know, I agree with most of that, but I will remind you that CUSA and the MWC were talking about merging less than a year ago. Since then, they've done some things to enhance the MWC... but there's no reason to ever group CUSA with the MAC. CUSA is much closer to the MWC than to the MAC, and revenue figures over the lifetimes of the three conferences bear that out.

(04-12-2013 09:54 AM)AndreWhere Wrote:  

(04-12-2013 09:43 AM)FIU4Ever Wrote:  FIU/FAU game is the Friday after thanksgiving.

Thanks. I guess that's not too horrible.

I wouldnt expect a large attendance for this one. While I'm excited and will be there I think the majority of students and family's will be gone for the weekend due to the Holiday.

Just preparing you up front.

(04-12-2013 09:37 AM)AndreWhere Wrote:  Well, yeah, under the existing contract, we mostly had Saturday games. I'm not sure how much longer that contract lasts, though, and there is apparently some flexibility. Over the last couple weeks, several games have been moved to a weekday. Tulane vs. LA Tech (2013) is an example. It's a Thursday game now. I think there is an FIU or FAU game that was recently announced as a Thursday game, too.

So, I think the bottom line is that we will get the good CUSA 2.0 TV money for the duration of the contract, and USM, UAB, UTEP, and Marshall will get CUSA 2.0 TV money for a few more years after that, courtesy of the defectors. BUT weekday games remain a reality for you, and will once again become a reality for UAB, USM, UTEP, and Marshall. And I shudder to think what our NEXT media deal will look like.

Basically, like I said, everyone is in fundamentally the same position as always, except that USM and a few other schools that had briefly been allowed to participate at a higher level have now lost this privilege.

Well, the good thing about that is that C-USA will get a few years to stabilize itself before having to negotiate a new contract unlike the oBE. And if C-USA can solidify itself in the top half of the Go5 by then, we should be able to negotiate a solid contract given the markets where the programs reside.

There's also a brand awareness around C-USA which should help.

(04-12-2013 11:31 AM)_sturt_ Wrote:  The gap between CUSA (and MAC) and the two top conferences (MWC and AAC) will only widen if they aren't actively pursuing ways to reduce that gap.

My feelings as well!

Advantage CUSA!

(04-12-2013 11:24 AM)BleedsGreen33 Wrote:  Hate to break this to you but there were no tv draws in CUSA before the defections.

Compared to...?

Compared to SEC or Big East, true.

Compared to MAC or Sun Belt, false.

Can't argue with the TV revenues in proportion to each other. TV networks, like anyone else, are there to make money... clearly there is a value that is greater than some, less than others.

My theory has always been that Tulane or any other school of their ilk can be terrible for a few years, but Joe Fan knows Tulane... they have a brand... there is a general recognition that they play FBS football... not so for practically any of the schools coming into CUSA who will replace Tulane and the other defectors... Joe Fan looks at almost any of those on the game schedule and typically isn't even sure that they play FBS.

(04-12-2013 11:45 AM)_sturt_ Wrote:  

(04-12-2013 11:24 AM)BleedsGreen33 Wrote:  Hate to break this to you but there were no tv draws in CUSA before the defections.

Compared to...?

Compared to SEC or Big East, true.

Compared to MAC or Sun Belt, false.

Can't argue with the TV revenues in proportion to each other. TV networks, like anyone else, are there to make money... clearly there is a value that is greater than some, less than others.

My theory has always been that Tulane or any other school of their ilk can be terrible for a few years, but Joe Fan knows Tulane... they have a brand... there is a general recognition that they play FBS football... not so for practically any of the schools coming into CUSA who will replace Tulane and the other defectors... Joe Fan looks at almost any of those on the game schedule and typically isn't even sure that they play FBS.

No I get all of that. I still see us above the MAC and SunBelt. I see us on par with the AAC also. I believe the MWC to be the most appealing right now. They still have Boise. But you know what? In the grand scheme no one cares about any of us. There is no national draw in CUSA or AAC. Of the non power conferences Boise is the only national draw out there. Once the AAC starts to actually play ball and the games are terrible and the numbers go down so will there contracts.

(04-12-2013 11:34 AM)AndreWhere Wrote:  You know, I agree with most of that, but I will remind you that CUSA and the MWC were talking about merging less than a year ago. Since then, they've done some things to enhance the MWC... but there's no reason to ever group CUSA with the MAC. CUSA is much closer to the MWC than to the MAC, and revenue figures over the lifetimes of the three conferences bear that out.

Look at the Sagarins that I provided in the other thread... you can argue with some details of any given rating formula, but when you look at the macro, there are some clear distinctions that can't be disputed very well.

CUSA 2.0 is competitive with MWC.

CUSA 3.0 is well behind, and now, much more alike with MAC.

Five of the seven defectors rank among the top 16 in all of the Group of Five conference schools. That's significant when only one newbie, Louisiana Tech, can say the same, and most are even in the bottom half of the list.

(04-12-2013 11:24 AM)BleedsGreen33 Wrote:  Hate to break this to you but there were no tv draws in CUSA before the defections.

A tv draw, outside of your own team, is a team making a run. When Houston was hot, I was interested to see them play. When Ball St. I think it was, was running the table I wanted to see them play.

When a 4-6 Northwestern is playing a 3-7 Purdue, you couldn't make me watch that game if you paid me.

In other words 'the story' makes 'the draw'. Get some good stories and you'll get paid.

(04-12-2013 11:34 AM)AndreWhere Wrote:  

(04-12-2013 11:31 AM)_sturt_ Wrote:  I like the Marshall AD, but let's face it... among the things he's paid to do is to put the best possible face on things... looking more soberly at the facts of history, there has been a significant difference between what those schools that have been grouped together as CUSA have fetched at the TV bargaining table and what those grouped together as Sun Belt have fetched... and the schools with the most value have now defected to AAC, and in their place, you have essentially Sun Belt-quality schools.

If the al.com report is accurate, the new CUSA should expect about 1/16th of whatever TV revenue would have been coming to the old CUSA had there been no realignment.

Chew on that... 1/16th.

Sure, the holdovers are blessed with that guarantee that the defectors will make up the difference, but none of that will matter a few years from now.

CUSA has to be innovative. The gap between CUSA (and MAC) and the two top conferences (MWC and AAC) will only widen if they aren't actively pursuing ways to reduce that gap.

You know, I agree with most of that, but I will remind you that CUSA and the MWC were talking about merging less than a year ago. Since then, they've done some things to enhance the MWC... but there's no reason to ever group CUSA with the MAC. CUSA is much closer to the MWC than to the MAC, and revenue figures over the lifetimes of the three conferences bear that out.

The reason the CUSA/MWC alignment fell through is because we could not create a new conferene and maintain Tourney Credits. Once that came to light it came down to one conference merging with the other and neither conference wanted their conference to be the one to dissolve. Kind of dumb and prideful but MWC didnt want to become CUSA and CUSA didnt want to become MWC.

(04-12-2013 11:31 AM)_sturt_ Wrote:  If the al.com report is accurate, the new CUSA should expect about 1/16th of whatever TV revenue would have been coming to the old CUSA had there been no realignment.

Chew on that... 1/16th.

Where are you pulling this number from?

(04-12-2013 11:50 AM)BleedsGreen33 Wrote:  No I get all of that. I still see us above the MAC and SunBelt. I see us on par with the AAC also. I believe the MWC to be the most appealing right now. They still have Boise. But you know what? In the grand scheme no one cares about any of us. There is no national draw in CUSA or AAC. Of the non power conferences Boise is the only national draw out there. Once the AAC starts to actually play ball and the games are terrible and the numbers go down so will there contracts.

1. I know you "see us" that way. But how do you use facts to support that vision?

2. In the grand scheme, they have cared about us more than they cared about Sun Belt schools.

No one argues that Joe Fan will watch Alabama/Vandy first, but when Bama starts running away with the game, then there is a second tier from which he'll select a game, and better to be Tulane than to be [insert newbie school brand here].

3. Why do you presume that AAC games will produce any less income than they did when they played under the CUSA banner? More reasonably, they should expect to gross the same kind of numbers, if not a little better with Cincy in the mix.

(04-12-2013 11:53 AM)ICB Wrote:  

(04-12-2013 11:31 AM)_sturt_ Wrote:  If the al.com report is accurate, the new CUSA should expect about 1/16th of whatever TV revenue would have been coming to the old CUSA had there been no realignment.

Chew on that... 1/16th.

Where are you pulling this number from?

http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2012/...ollow.html

(04-12-2013 11:58 AM)_sturt_ Wrote:  

(04-12-2013 11:53 AM)ICB Wrote:  

(04-12-2013 11:31 AM)_sturt_ Wrote:  If the al.com report is accurate, the new CUSA should expect about 1/16th of whatever TV revenue would have been coming to the old CUSA had there been no realignment.

Chew on that... 1/16th.

Where are you pulling this number from?

http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2012/...ollow.html

I read that article and nowhere do i find that the new cusa should expect 1/16th of the old cusa. What calculations/thought process did you use to come up with that number?