(05-01-2015 08:55 AM)Cajunman02 Wrote:  

(04-30-2015 06:09 PM)Thegoldstandard Wrote:  

(04-30-2015 02:12 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(04-30-2015 01:35 PM)Thegoldstandard Wrote:  

(04-30-2015 12:28 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Oh I think there's plenty of bad blood between La Tech and ULM. Again, I'm not dialled in. Its entirely possible that ULL has the full support of La Tech in expansion. Just given LTU's prior history with its peers, it seems reasonable. That combined with a lot of chatter about USA being the consensus choice seems to be what's driving my thoughts on this.

Either way, USA will be fine.

Just who is usa the consensus choice with? I know of no support for them from the people who will actually do the voting. Please don't tell me its coming from the clown who wrote that article about Louisville getting them in a league they were not a member of.

They are the easiest replacement for UAB, metro area, local bowl game, big endowment.....the only drawback is that they infringe on USM's territory.

If USM is no longer opposed to them...it will be USA.

I read alot of your post and laugh. Your school is a hell of a lot higher on the picking list than usa. The truth is they are nowhere to be found except on a few bloggers keyboards and the few posters on here from south.
There is a 99% chance that Southern miss and everyone west goes for UL.

What this guy said. The problem for us is that it still doesn't give us enough votes. No one has enough votes at the present time. USA doesn't have much support from the western schools of CUSA.

MT wants to stay in the East & appreciates ULL....we'd likely be a Yes vote.

University of Louisiana deserves a conference upgrade. Their fan support is already beyond the sunbelt. I watched a UL softball game on tv last year and it looked better than p5 schools.

they are the obvious choice from an outsider prospective.

Quote:I would be thrilled with Liberty. Great resources, great facilities, great media capabilities, great commitment and would be another great rival for Charlotte.

It's a joke of a school academically, with many of them being online too. I wouldn't be proud taking them in for an established G5 conference.

Basically, they'll probably aim for a upper-tier or growing D1AA/FCS school that has a decent basketball team, or as usual pick from the Sun Belt.

(05-02-2015 01:53 AM)toddjnsn Wrote:  

Quote:I would be thrilled with Liberty. Great resources, great facilities, great media capabilities, great commitment and would be another great rival for Charlotte.

It's a joke of a school academically, with many of them being online too. I wouldn't be proud taking them in for an established G5 conference.

Basically, they'll probably aim for a upper-tier or growing D1AA/FCS school that has a decent basketball team, or as usual pick from the Sun Belt.

U. Mass. have a decent basketball team, and would be looking for a new home.

CUSA won't expand. CUSA received ~$25 million from the playoff this year and I can see that doubling to $50 million or more in five years. As the revenue continues to soar as the playoff expands, each additional new member takes more money out of the pockets of the current members.

With the championship game deregulation, the ideal number for a G5 conference is ten. Would ten members in a conference receiving $5 million each be willing to give away $1.5 million in revenue to expand to fourteen schools? Hell no. The game has changed. CUSA needs to slim down.

I'm not sure how you get ten as the ideal number - for every member below 12, the conference loses just over $1MM in CFP monies ($1MM plus the bonus for satisfactory APR). With deregulation, a conference with as few as eight schools (the minimum for FBS) could have a title game. At ten schools, the odds of a CCG rematch are still pretty high.

(05-02-2015 07:17 AM)chargeradio Wrote:  I'm not sure how you get ten as the ideal number - for every member below 12, the conference loses just over $1MM in CFP monies ($1MM plus the bonus for satisfactory APR). With deregulation, a conference with as few as eight schools (the minimum for FBS) could have a title game. At ten schools, the odds of a CCG rematch are still pretty high.

Yes, the new school gets $1 million up to 12 members, but the current members receive no benefit from that. I'm talking about the separate revenue distribution payment which I believe was ~$25 million.

It's all about the future playoff revenue that G5 conferences will receive. We all know the playoff will expand and the revenue will soar. Given that, you want the fewest number of members you can safely get by with.

I think CUSA should go "mega-conference" on us all with their TV contract negotiations coming up. I think this could get a decent per-member annual TV revenue stream for the conference....

North Div

Army FB/Marshall oly
Buffalo
Ohio
Toledo
CMU
WMU
NIU



East Div

Marshall FB/GA St oly
ODU
Charlotte
App St
GA Southern
FIU
FAU



South Div

GA St FB/UAB oly (I'd keep em for this)
USA
WKU
Mid Tenn
S Miss
Ark St
LaTech


West Div

NMSU
UTEP
Tex St
UTSA
North Tex
Rice
ULL


Football conference sched: 6 div games + 3 inter division games = 9 total....leaving 3 for OOC.....top 2 division winners, per FBS rankings, play in CCG.

Men's basketball sched: 12 division games (double round robin) + 2 inter division games vs other 3 divisions (6 total....try and match up the best 4 from each division best you can so top basketball teams in each division get RPI boost) = 18 total conference games......24 team conference basketball tournament, top 6 each division, would be lengthy but doable.


Sorry Idaho, Troy, ULM....you will go to the MAC with their 6 (Now: North Div) leftovers along with UTA, UALR and two more southern non-football member additions of your choice for a 6 team MAC southern division for oly sports/basketball....Idaho and UMASS would be football only in this new MAC.

TV partners (roughly) for CUSA-28/28....

Tier 1a: CBS and Turner partner up like they do for ncaa tournament...many channels involved!....but sorry, no OTA CBS/Turner except CCG.

Tier 1b: espn or fox, depending which one doesn't go overboard nabbing B1G TV contract....heck, maybe both with all the CUSA games available.

Tier 2: ASN (but they actually give you TV money now due to all the fanbases' eyeballs involved).

Considering CUSA pushed the megaconference idea before with famous Mount CUSA plan aimed at a 20 team coast 2 coast merger I wouldn't be surprised if CUSA tried to go big again while they had the opportunity.

They could sit on 13 until the decision for championship deregulation passes then go to 18 with a North Division of MAC schools. With those schools now making 850,000 in TV money a year I'm sure their worth can be retained in CUSA.

I do however like the idea of the MWC considering taking in Rice/Louisiana to grow to add some market value and give them a presence in Texas in case the AAC falls apart and SMU/Tulsa are left hanging out there.

CUSA could also grow to 16 and do quads:

North: NIU, Toledo, Marshall, Ohio
East: Charlotte, ODU, FAU, FIU
Central: WKU, MTSU, USM, LaTech
West: UTEP, UTSA, UNT, Rice

That way everyone is happy with their divisional alignment while bringing the stronger programs from the MAC in. Then a 4 team mini playoff to determine the champion.

(05-02-2015 05:34 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  Considering CUSA pushed the megaconference idea before with famous Mount CUSA plan aimed at a 20 team coast 2 coast merger I wouldn't be surprised if CUSA tried to go big again while they had the opportunity.

They could sit on 13 until the decision for championship deregulation passes then go to 18 with a North Division of MAC schools. With those schools now making 850,000 in TV money a year I'm sure their worth can be retained in CUSA.

I do however like the idea of the MWC considering taking in Rice/Louisiana to grow to add some market value and give them a presence in Texas in case the AAC falls apart and SMU/Tulsa are left hanging out there.

CUSA could also grow to 16 and do quads:

North: NIU, Toledo, Marshall, Ohio
East: Charlotte, ODU, FAU, FIU
Central: WKU, MTSU, USM, LaTech
West: UTEP, UTSA, UNT, Rice

That way everyone is happy with their divisional alignment while bringing the stronger programs from the MAC in. Then a 4 team mini playoff to determine the champion.

Actually, The Southern Conference was the first with a Super Conference at 27 with schools that are now part of SEC, ACC, AAC, C-USA, CAA and some D3 and NAIA schools a very long time ago.

Alabama
Auburn
Clemson
Georgia
Georgia Tech
Kentucky
Maryland
Mississippi State
North Carolina
North Carolina State
Tennessee
Virginia
Virginia Tech
Washington & Lee D3

They added:
Florida
LSU
Ole Miss.
Tulane
Vanderbilt

Then:
Sewanee D3
VMI
Duke

Wake Forest
George Washington
Richmond
William & Mary
The Citadel
Davidson
Furman

Later additions include:
West Virginia
East Carolina
Appalachian State
Marshall


Then you have the ones today and Georgia Southern.

Southern had 27 teams for all sports at one time, and schools left to start new conferences. Southern Conference is the parent conference for the ACC and SEC since most of the members left and formed those 2 conference.

(05-02-2015 07:17 AM)chargeradio Wrote:  I'm not sure how you get ten as the ideal number - for every member below 12, the conference loses just over $1MM in CFP monies ($1MM plus the bonus for satisfactory APR). With deregulation, a conference with as few as eight schools (the minimum for FBS) could have a title game. At ten schools, the odds of a CCG rematch are still pretty high.

CFP base distribution to a 10 member conference is $10 million. To a 12 member conference is $12 million.

The net per team is identical so there is no money "lost" by having 10 vs. 12 unless the two added members reduce travel costs or produce more TV money or help drive ticket sales.

(05-02-2015 07:26 AM)GSU Eagles Wrote:  

(05-02-2015 07:17 AM)chargeradio Wrote:  I'm not sure how you get ten as the ideal number - for every member below 12, the conference loses just over $1MM in CFP monies ($1MM plus the bonus for satisfactory APR). With deregulation, a conference with as few as eight schools (the minimum for FBS) could have a title game. At ten schools, the odds of a CCG rematch are still pretty high.

Yes, the new school gets $1 million up to 12 members, but the current members receive no benefit from that. I'm talking about the separate revenue distribution payment which I believe was ~$25 million.

It's all about the future playoff revenue that G5 conferences will receive. We all know the playoff will expand and the revenue will soar. Given that, you want the fewest number of members you can safely get by with.

There is no 25 million dollar CFP distribution for CUSA. CUSA took in 14 million from the CFP. They got 1 million per team (caps a 12 million per conference) and they got about 2 million in performance money. That's 14 million. The total amount of the CFP G5 distribution that's is allocated based on performance was only about 9 million. That means the maximum amount a conference could relieve for performance is about 3 million. A comference could pick up another 4 million by claiming the G5 access bowl slot. Bottom line, no G5 conference will be splitting 25 to 50 million is extra CFP money. There is no such pool of funds that large.

(05-03-2015 10:07 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-02-2015 07:26 AM)GSU Eagles Wrote:  

(05-02-2015 07:17 AM)chargeradio Wrote:  I'm not sure how you get ten as the ideal number - for every member below 12, the conference loses just over $1MM in CFP monies ($1MM plus the bonus for satisfactory APR). With deregulation, a conference with as few as eight schools (the minimum for FBS) could have a title game. At ten schools, the odds of a CCG rematch are still pretty high.

Yes, the new school gets $1 million up to 12 members, but the current members receive no benefit from that. I'm talking about the separate revenue distribution payment which I believe was ~$25 million.

It's all about the future playoff revenue that G5 conferences will receive. We all know the playoff will expand and the revenue will soar. Given that, you want the fewest number of members you can safely get by with.

There is no 25 million dollar CFP distribution for CUSA. CUSA took in 14 million from the CFP. They got 1 million per team (caps a 12 million per conference) and they got about 2 million in performance money. That's 14 million. The total amount of the CFP G5 distribution that's is allocated based on performance was only about 9 million. That means the maximum amount a conference could relieve for performance is about 3 million. A comference could pick up another 4 million by claiming the G5 access bowl slot. Bottom line, no G5 conference will be splitting 25 to 50 million is extra CFP money. There is no such pool of funds that large.

I incorrectly thought CUSA received the $1 million per member plus the $15 million payout. The total payout is $15 million as you stated, but the point does not change in terms of CUSA going back to 14. I think we can all agree that as the playoff grows and likely expands, the revenue will soar. As that happens the impact of adding schools, particularly above 12, becomes more significant. I'm doubtful that there are schools that CUSA can add that will bring in enough revenue to offset the future growth of the playoff revenue.

(04-24-2015 06:28 AM)Seminole Indian Wrote:  

(04-24-2015 01:07 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(04-23-2015 07:14 PM)FlyHawk98 Wrote:  Never mind, I just looked it up.

Heck yeah, I support Arkansas State. Your average was only 24,861 but your first 3 games had good attendance with 26k, 29k, and 29k.

Yeah it was a frustrating year. Ran out of horses. The coaching turnover killed depth. We had two of three starting down linemen were freshmen and when one got hurt our run defense fell off the map after the Utah State win.

Attendance should go up with Mizzou coming in. With 30k seats betting we sell some standing room tickets for the game.

Season ticket sales have risen six straight years. In other words we had sales increases after two 4-7 seasons before we hired Freeze as head coach.

Surprised we aren't pushing the idea that some good seats are opening up this year as people move to suites, club seats and loge boxes in the new press box.

So much for the conventional wisdom that it takes a new coach 3-5 years to get their program up and going. How long to you guys give a coach....4-5 games?

I also remember reading, probably on your site, that A-State had one of the youngest, least experienced teams in all of college football last year, so I would guess the chances of extending the 4th longest active bowl streak in G5 is pretty good.

That is a small consolation for not having a budget like some of these 'upsides' , I guess.

Must be difficult not being able to join them every off season as they scurry here to beat their chest about all their upsides, after another disappointing fall.

I can sure see why many of the 'upsides' in CUSA would not want more non-upsides in their conference. Probably hate getting their tales kicked by La Tech, and are dreading when USM returns to their tail kicking ways, without adding other non-upsides.

Fact is fans of A-State, like those of La Tech, GaSo, AppSt, etc., will just have to except the fact that winning is all you have to look forward to come fall. Must be tough not being an 'upside'.

stAte doesn't want to be in CUSA, you have said it over and over. Why are you pissed off at "upside" universities in CUSA?

If my conference (let's say Sunbelt as an example) was better by virtue of my conference mates beating another conference's (eeh, let's say CUSA as an example) team, I would simply point to the score board, sorta like what La Tech does.

At the end of the day, if you want no part of CUSA, why worry about the composition of the conference?

(05-03-2015 03:47 PM)FIU4Ever Wrote:  

(04-24-2015 06:28 AM)Seminole Indian Wrote:  

(04-24-2015 01:07 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(04-23-2015 07:14 PM)FlyHawk98 Wrote:  Never mind, I just looked it up.

Heck yeah, I support Arkansas State. Your average was only 24,861 but your first 3 games had good attendance with 26k, 29k, and 29k.

Yeah it was a frustrating year. Ran out of horses. The coaching turnover killed depth. We had two of three starting down linemen were freshmen and when one got hurt our run defense fell off the map after the Utah State win.

Attendance should go up with Mizzou coming in. With 30k seats betting we sell some standing room tickets for the game.

Season ticket sales have risen six straight years. In other words we had sales increases after two 4-7 seasons before we hired Freeze as head coach.

Surprised we aren't pushing the idea that some good seats are opening up this year as people move to suites, club seats and loge boxes in the new press box.

So much for the conventional wisdom that it takes a new coach 3-5 years to get their program up and going. How long to you guys give a coach....4-5 games?

I also remember reading, probably on your site, that A-State had one of the youngest, least experienced teams in all of college football last year, so I would guess the chances of extending the 4th longest active bowl streak in G5 is pretty good.

That is a small consolation for not having a budget like some of these 'upsides' , I guess.

Must be difficult not being able to join them every off season as they scurry here to beat their chest about all their upsides, after another disappointing fall.

I can sure see why many of the 'upsides' in CUSA would not want more non-upsides in their conference. Probably hate getting their tales kicked by La Tech, and are dreading when USM returns to their tail kicking ways, without adding other non-upsides.

Fact is fans of A-State, like those of La Tech, GaSo, AppSt, etc., will just have to except the fact that winning is all you have to look forward to come fall. Must be tough not being an 'upside'.

stAte doesn't want to be in CUSA, you have said it over and over. Why are you pissed off at "upside" universities in CUSA?

If my conference (let's say Sunbelt as an example) was better by virtue of my conference mates beating another conference's (eeh, let's say CUSA as an example) team, I would simply point to the score board, sorta like what La Tech does.

At the end of the day, if you want no part of CUSA, why worry about the composition of the conference?

As an aside......

1) Seminole Indian is not an A-State fan.

2) There are a lot of people who equate "not begging to get into CUSA" with "doesn't want to be in CUSA". They are two different things. If any conference extended A-State an invitation (and none have) the admin would run the numbers, do cost-benefit analysis, look at the members of both conferences and landscape at that time, and make a rational decision on whether or not we "want to be in CUSA". I have no idea what that decision might be at the time....and neither does Seminole Indian.

(05-03-2015 12:24 PM)GSU Eagles Wrote:  

(05-03-2015 10:07 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-02-2015 07:26 AM)GSU Eagles Wrote:  

(05-02-2015 07:17 AM)chargeradio Wrote:  I'm not sure how you get ten as the ideal number - for every member below 12, the conference loses just over $1MM in CFP monies ($1MM plus the bonus for satisfactory APR). With deregulation, a conference with as few as eight schools (the minimum for FBS) could have a title game. At ten schools, the odds of a CCG rematch are still pretty high.

Yes, the new school gets $1 million up to 12 members, but the current members receive no benefit from that. I'm talking about the separate revenue distribution payment which I believe was ~$25 million.

It's all about the future playoff revenue that G5 conferences will receive. We all know the playoff will expand and the revenue will soar. Given that, you want the fewest number of members you can safely get by with.

There is no 25 million dollar CFP distribution for CUSA. CUSA took in 14 million from the CFP. They got 1 million per team (caps a 12 million per conference) and they got about 2 million in performance money. That's 14 million. The total amount of the CFP G5 distribution that's is allocated based on performance was only about 9 million. That means the maximum amount a conference could relieve for performance is about 3 million. A comference could pick up another 4 million by claiming the G5 access bowl slot. Bottom line, no G5 conference will be splitting 25 to 50 million is extra CFP money. There is no such pool of funds that large.

I incorrectly thought CUSA received the $1 million per member plus the $15 million payout. The total payout is $15 million as you stated, but the point does not change in terms of CUSA going back to 14. I think we can all agree that as the playoff grows and likely expands, the revenue will soar. As that happens the impact of adding schools, particularly above 12, becomes more significant. I'm doubtful that there are schools that CUSA can add that will bring in enough revenue to offset the future growth of the playoff revenue.

I kind of agree that 12 is the ideal number for CUSA. To do that, though, UTEP needs to find its logical home in the Mountain West. Until then, CUSA is looking at a 13-team league. And rather than deal with that odd number, they will probably look to balance it out at 14.

(05-03-2015 05:19 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  As an aside......

1) Seminole Indian is not an A-State fan.

Didn't know that, he projects himself as a guy from the inner circles of stAte.

(05-03-2015 05:19 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  2) There are a lot of people who equate "not begging to get into CUSA" with "doesn't want to be in CUSA". They are two different things. If any conference extended A-State an invitation (and none have) the admin would run the numbers, do cost-benefit analysis, look at the members of both conferences and landscape at that time, and make a rational decision on whether or not we "want to be in CUSA". I have no idea what that decision might be at the time....and neither does Seminole Indian.

Would not expect any fan base to beg or pimp themselves out for conference membership. On the other hand ripping a conference as having no redeeming value but willing to consider an invite to said conference seems inconsistent.

The "market" schools will not be thrown out as a condition of your acceptance of an invite. If you believe these schools will never win in FBS and if we should believe your stories that you danced all night long when they left the 'belt or was not invited to the 'belt, why would you voluntarily put this noose back around your necks? You dodged the bullet, addition by subtraction, etc, right?

Based on the rhetoric from your AD, you guys shouldn't even need cost-benefit analysis because CUSA is worst than where you are now.

What gives?

(05-03-2015 05:49 PM)FIU4Ever Wrote:  Would not expect any fan base to beg or pimp themselves out for conference membership. On the other hand ripping a conference as having no redeeming value but willing to consider an invite to said conference seems inconsistent.

The "market" schools will not be thrown out as a condition of your acceptance of an invite. If you believe these schools will never win in FBS and if we should believe your stories that you danced all night long when they left the 'belt or was not invited to the 'belt, why would you voluntarily put this noose back around your necks? You dodged the bullet, addition by subtraction, etc, right?

Based on the rhetoric from your AD, you guys shouldn't even need cost-benefit analysis because CUSA is worst than where you are now.

What gives?

It was an aside. I was just clarifying a couple of misperceptions. I don't really have much interest in the discussion beyond that.

I would love for us to add Ark State to the West.

It would give us a new state, a good football program, and good fan base. Oh yeah, they also do not step on anyone else's territory like South Alabama does to So Miss.

(05-03-2015 05:49 PM)FIU4Ever Wrote:  

(05-03-2015 05:19 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  As an aside......

1) Seminole Indian is not an A-State fan.

Didn't know that, he projects himself as a guy from the inner circles of stAte.

(05-03-2015 05:19 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  2) There are a lot of people who equate "not begging to get into CUSA" with "doesn't want to be in CUSA". They are two different things. If any conference extended A-State an invitation (and none have) the admin would run the numbers, do cost-benefit analysis, look at the members of both conferences and landscape at that time, and make a rational decision on whether or not we "want to be in CUSA". I have no idea what that decision might be at the time....and neither does Seminole Indian.

Would not expect any fan base to beg or pimp themselves out for conference membership. On the other hand ripping a conference as having no redeeming value but willing to consider an invite to said conference seems inconsistent.

The "market" schools will not be thrown out as a condition of your acceptance of an invite. If you believe these schools will never win in FBS and if we should believe your stories that you danced all night long when they left the 'belt or was not invited to the 'belt, why would you voluntarily put this noose back around your necks? You dodged the bullet, addition by subtraction, etc, right?

Based on the rhetoric from your AD, you guys shouldn't even need cost-benefit analysis because CUSA is worst than where you are now.

What gives?

The "rhetoric" from Terry Mohajir is any time a fan or member of the media asks about joining CUSA, is to flip the question back at them either asking what goals AState has that cannot achieved in Sun Belt that can be achieved in CUSA or to ask what is the benefit given Sun Belt offers ___, ____, _____.

Amazes me how this constantly turns into a message board legend that he is dogging CUSA.

Only a fool would state that another conference is essential to a program given you have zero control over who will or will not invite you. BYU has backed themselves in a corner saying they need to be the P5 shortly. What the hell do they do if it doesn't happen? Shut down?