(07-11-2020 09:26 AM)HiddenDragon Wrote:  

(07-11-2020 08:39 AM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote:  C-USA and the MAC go to opposite extremes. C-USA has pretty much all Saturday games, but nothing on ESPN. Games are very hard to find.......

Had to stop you right there. Games are not hard to find anymore. Either they are on some network or they aren't. You do not have to put a whole lot of effort to finding a CUSA, Sun Belt, or MAC game. That whole "it's hard to find a game" excuse jumped the shark a long time ago.

Now you may not like the network or the streaming service the game is being shown but the games are very accessible.

Yes, one of the quiet revolutions of the past 5 years is how streaming has basically canceled the "exposure" argument for media deals. Nowadays, basically all FBS games by everyone are available on some platform, and as everyone is now used to streaming, it's not the big deal to have your stuff "relegated" to a streaming platform the way say having games on ESPN3 was viewed five years ago.

There really is no "exposure" component to media deals anymore, in the old (really, very recent) sense of "money vs exposure". Everyone has exposure, so it's all about money.

Right now the people in danger of actually being culled are people on the margins. To find people on the margins I suggest looking for high student fees. That's going to invariably get you an alarming number of MAC schools and some C-USA/Sun Belt schools.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/education/h...s-n1145171

https://georgiastatesignal.com/georgia-s...s-country/

(07-11-2020 10:08 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-11-2020 09:26 AM)HiddenDragon Wrote:  

(07-11-2020 08:39 AM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote:  C-USA and the MAC go to opposite extremes. C-USA has pretty much all Saturday games, but nothing on ESPN. Games are very hard to find.......

Had to stop you right there. Games are not hard to find anymore. Either they are on some network or they aren't. You do not have to put a whole lot of effort to finding a CUSA, Sun Belt, or MAC game. That whole "it's hard to find a game" excuse jumped the shark a long time ago.

Now you may not like the network or the streaming service the game is being shown but the games are very accessible.

Yes, one of the quiet revolutions of the past 5 years is how streaming has basically canceled the "exposure" argument for media deals. Nowadays, basically all FBS games by everyone are available on some platform, and as everyone is now used to streaming, it's not the big deal to have your stuff "relegated" to a streaming platform the way say having games on ESPN3 was viewed five years ago.

There really is no "exposure" component to media deals anymore, in the old (really, very recent) sense of "money vs exposure". Everyone has exposure, so it's all about money.

The games can all be found, very true, but that doesn't mean one platform is automatically as accessible as another. There's still an exposure component although it's been mitigated to some degree.

A broadcast network is still more desirable than a cable network. A top tier cable network is still more desirable than a second tier cable network. Any cable network is still more desirable than an online-only platform. Part of that is the consumer culture as people have been used to using certain platforms all their lives. Another aspect is the cost of entry for the consumer. The easier and cheaper the platform is to acquire then the more likely it is to garner larger audiences.

Mostly, it's a matter of allocation of resources. The schools that tend to garner the biggest audiences are going to be the ones featured on the most accessible platforms and given the most publicity. For a network, that's their best investment.

In a couple of decades, it may function differently in regards to the popularity of certain platforms, but there's definitely an exposure element even if all the games can be found if someone makes the effort to look for them.

(07-11-2020 03:58 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(07-11-2020 10:08 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-11-2020 09:26 AM)HiddenDragon Wrote:  

(07-11-2020 08:39 AM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote:  C-USA and the MAC go to opposite extremes. C-USA has pretty much all Saturday games, but nothing on ESPN. Games are very hard to find.......

Had to stop you right there. Games are not hard to find anymore. Either they are on some network or they aren't. You do not have to put a whole lot of effort to finding a CUSA, Sun Belt, or MAC game. That whole "it's hard to find a game" excuse jumped the shark a long time ago.

Now you may not like the network or the streaming service the game is being shown but the games are very accessible.

Yes, one of the quiet revolutions of the past 5 years is how streaming has basically canceled the "exposure" argument for media deals. Nowadays, basically all FBS games by everyone are available on some platform, and as everyone is now used to streaming, it's not the big deal to have your stuff "relegated" to a streaming platform the way say having games on ESPN3 was viewed five years ago.

There really is no "exposure" component to media deals anymore, in the old (really, very recent) sense of "money vs exposure". Everyone has exposure, so it's all about money.

The games can all be found, very true, but that doesn't mean one platform is automatically as accessible as another. There's still an exposure component although it's been mitigated to some degree.

A broadcast network is still more desirable than a cable network. A top tier cable network is still more desirable than a second tier cable network. Any cable network is still more desirable than an online-only platform. Part of that is the consumer culture as people have been used to using certain platforms all their lives. Another aspect is the cost of entry for the consumer. The easier and cheaper the platform is to acquire then the more likely it is to garner larger audiences.

Mostly, it's a matter of allocation of resources. The schools that tend to garner the biggest audiences are going to be the ones featured on the most accessible platforms and given the most publicity. For a network, that's their best investment.

In a couple of decades, it may function differently in regards to the popularity of certain platforms, but there's definitely an exposure element even if all the games can be found if someone makes the effort to look for them.

I agree. And I’m not fully buying the accessibility issue because there can still be considerable costs involved. Chances are, the “sweet spot” is going to be having both cable and premium/niche streaming options for customers. We’re going to be paying about the same or more than just tiered cable packages that supported our access to our schools.

I also agree that you can’t serve two masters. Either the idea of non-Saturday games should be spread across all of FBS or we just go back to the “sanctity” of that day of the week for the late summer and fall being the exclusive “home base” for schools. I suspect the experiment of testing other nights probably hurts those schools in the traditional revenue streams of tickets and other commerce as having a spot somewhere on ESPN’s dial any other night of the week other than Saturday.

(07-11-2020 03:58 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(07-11-2020 10:08 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-11-2020 09:26 AM)HiddenDragon Wrote:  

(07-11-2020 08:39 AM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote:  C-USA and the MAC go to opposite extremes. C-USA has pretty much all Saturday games, but nothing on ESPN. Games are very hard to find.......

Had to stop you right there. Games are not hard to find anymore. Either they are on some network or they aren't. You do not have to put a whole lot of effort to finding a CUSA, Sun Belt, or MAC game. That whole "it's hard to find a game" excuse jumped the shark a long time ago.

Now you may not like the network or the streaming service the game is being shown but the games are very accessible.

Yes, one of the quiet revolutions of the past 5 years is how streaming has basically canceled the "exposure" argument for media deals. Nowadays, basically all FBS games by everyone are available on some platform, and as everyone is now used to streaming, it's not the big deal to have your stuff "relegated" to a streaming platform the way say having games on ESPN3 was viewed five years ago.

There really is no "exposure" component to media deals anymore, in the old (really, very recent) sense of "money vs exposure". Everyone has exposure, so it's all about money.

The games can all be found, very true, but that doesn't mean one platform is automatically as accessible as another. There's still an exposure component although it's been mitigated to some degree.

A broadcast network is still more desirable than a cable network. A top tier cable network is still more desirable than a second tier cable network. Any cable network is still more desirable than an online-only platform. Part of that is the consumer culture as people have been used to using certain platforms all their lives. Another aspect is the cost of entry for the consumer. The easier and cheaper the platform is to acquire then the more likely it is to garner larger audiences.

Mostly, it's a matter of allocation of resources. The schools that tend to garner the biggest audiences are going to be the ones featured on the most accessible platforms and given the most publicity. For a network, that's their best investment.

In a couple of decades, it may function differently in regards to the popularity of certain platforms, but there's definitely an exposure element even if all the games can be found if someone makes the effort to look for them.

This is what I was trying to say earlier regarding SB vs. C-USA packages. You just spelled it out far better. Thank you.

(07-11-2020 10:08 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-11-2020 09:26 AM)HiddenDragon Wrote:  

(07-11-2020 08:39 AM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote:  C-USA and the MAC go to opposite extremes. C-USA has pretty much all Saturday games, but nothing on ESPN. Games are very hard to find.......

Had to stop you right there. Games are not hard to find anymore. Either they are on some network or they aren't. You do not have to put a whole lot of effort to finding a CUSA, Sun Belt, or MAC game. That whole "it's hard to find a game" excuse jumped the shark a long time ago.

Now you may not like the network or the streaming service the game is being shown but the games are very accessible.

Yes, one of the quiet revolutions of the past 5 years is how streaming has basically canceled the "exposure" argument for media deals. Nowadays, basically all FBS games by everyone are available on some platform, and as everyone is now used to streaming, it's not the big deal to have your stuff "relegated" to a streaming platform the way say having games on ESPN3 was viewed five years ago.

There really is no "exposure" component to media deals anymore, in the old (really, very recent) sense of "money vs exposure". Everyone has exposure, so it's all about money.

There are still major differences in exposure. Platforms matter in that regard. Yes, all will allow your most loyal fans to follow your games. However, some platforms are much more likely to draw more causal viewers to your game than others.

(07-11-2020 10:43 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Right now the people in danger of actually being culled are people on the margins. To find people on the margins I suggest looking for high student fees. That's going to invariably get you an alarming number of MAC schools and some C-USA/Sun Belt schools.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/education/h...s-n1145171

https://georgiastatesignal.com/georgia-s...s-country/

The student fee will obviously fall if enrollment falters, but can you even legally charge a student fee for a service you publicly announce you can’t offer? By the way—-this is why I don’t think “student athletes” are getting screwed by the schools. Most schools are losing money on college athletics and it’s the students who are effectively paying for much of the costs to cover the athletes, seems to me regular students are getting screwed way worse than athletes.

(07-12-2020 09:28 AM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote:  

(07-11-2020 03:58 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(07-11-2020 10:08 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-11-2020 09:26 AM)HiddenDragon Wrote:  

(07-11-2020 08:39 AM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote:  C-USA and the MAC go to opposite extremes. C-USA has pretty much all Saturday games, but nothing on ESPN. Games are very hard to find.......

Had to stop you right there. Games are not hard to find anymore. Either they are on some network or they aren't. You do not have to put a whole lot of effort to finding a CUSA, Sun Belt, or MAC game. That whole "it's hard to find a game" excuse jumped the shark a long time ago.

Now you may not like the network or the streaming service the game is being shown but the games are very accessible.

Yes, one of the quiet revolutions of the past 5 years is how streaming has basically canceled the "exposure" argument for media deals. Nowadays, basically all FBS games by everyone are available on some platform, and as everyone is now used to streaming, it's not the big deal to have your stuff "relegated" to a streaming platform the way say having games on ESPN3 was viewed five years ago.

There really is no "exposure" component to media deals anymore, in the old (really, very recent) sense of "money vs exposure". Everyone has exposure, so it's all about money.

The games can all be found, very true, but that doesn't mean one platform is automatically as accessible as another. There's still an exposure component although it's been mitigated to some degree.

A broadcast network is still more desirable than a cable network. A top tier cable network is still more desirable than a second tier cable network. Any cable network is still more desirable than an online-only platform. Part of that is the consumer culture as people have been used to using certain platforms all their lives. Another aspect is the cost of entry for the consumer. The easier and cheaper the platform is to acquire then the more likely it is to garner larger audiences.

Mostly, it's a matter of allocation of resources. The schools that tend to garner the biggest audiences are going to be the ones featured on the most accessible platforms and given the most publicity. For a network, that's their best investment.

In a couple of decades, it may function differently in regards to the popularity of certain platforms, but there's definitely an exposure element even if all the games can be found if someone makes the effort to look for them.

This is what I was trying to say earlier regarding SB vs. C-USA packages. You just spelled it out far better. Thank you.

And that's what I saying as well. The games are accessible and easy to find it's just your preference of service that you choose to view games. Is the NFL Package accessible for people in general? Some will say yes and some will say no.

(07-12-2020 09:34 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-11-2020 10:08 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-11-2020 09:26 AM)HiddenDragon Wrote:  

(07-11-2020 08:39 AM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote:  C-USA and the MAC go to opposite extremes. C-USA has pretty much all Saturday games, but nothing on ESPN. Games are very hard to find.......

Had to stop you right there. Games are not hard to find anymore. Either they are on some network or they aren't. You do not have to put a whole lot of effort to finding a CUSA, Sun Belt, or MAC game. That whole "it's hard to find a game" excuse jumped the shark a long time ago.

Now you may not like the network or the streaming service the game is being shown but the games are very accessible.

Yes, one of the quiet revolutions of the past 5 years is how streaming has basically canceled the "exposure" argument for media deals. Nowadays, basically all FBS games by everyone are available on some platform, and as everyone is now used to streaming, it's not the big deal to have your stuff "relegated" to a streaming platform the way say having games on ESPN3 was viewed five years ago.

There really is no "exposure" component to media deals anymore, in the old (really, very recent) sense of "money vs exposure". Everyone has exposure, so it's all about money.

There are still major differences in exposure. Platforms matter in that regard. Yes, all will allow your most loyal fans to follow your games. However, some platforms are much more likely to draw more causal viewers to your game than others.

Exposure vs accessibility are two separate entities in my opinion. Are games that are ESPN provides more exposure than a game on Facebook? I would say yes. But on the hand, I don't have ESPN (I do have ESPN Plus) and I would say more people have a Facebook account than ESPN so does that mean accessibility to Facebook is easier than ESPN? I would say yes. No it doesn't mean more people will watch a game on Facebook but that could change over time.

(07-11-2020 03:58 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(07-11-2020 10:08 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-11-2020 09:26 AM)HiddenDragon Wrote:  

(07-11-2020 08:39 AM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote:  C-USA and the MAC go to opposite extremes. C-USA has pretty much all Saturday games, but nothing on ESPN. Games are very hard to find.......

Had to stop you right there. Games are not hard to find anymore. Either they are on some network or they aren't. You do not have to put a whole lot of effort to finding a CUSA, Sun Belt, or MAC game. That whole "it's hard to find a game" excuse jumped the shark a long time ago.

Now you may not like the network or the streaming service the game is being shown but the games are very accessible.

Yes, one of the quiet revolutions of the past 5 years is how streaming has basically canceled the "exposure" argument for media deals. Nowadays, basically all FBS games by everyone are available on some platform, and as everyone is now used to streaming, it's not the big deal to have your stuff "relegated" to a streaming platform the way say having games on ESPN3 was viewed five years ago.

There really is no "exposure" component to media deals anymore, in the old (really, very recent) sense of "money vs exposure". Everyone has exposure, so it's all about money.

The games can all be found, very true, but that doesn't mean one platform is automatically as accessible as another. There's still an exposure component although it's been mitigated to some degree.

A broadcast network is still more desirable than a cable network. A top tier cable network is still more desirable than a second tier cable network. Any cable network is still more desirable than an online-only platform.

All of that is true, those distinctions all still exist. I suspect where we disagree is the meaning of the term "some" in your phrase "mitigated to some degree". I think "some" is a significant amount, thus having a major impact on the "exposure vs money" balance. I suspect you think its less than that.

Streaming has had a really big impact here. Yes, cable is still the way-biggest way that college sports is consumed and claims about the "death of cable" are exaggerated. But streaming, which was kind of cutting-edge exotic five years ago has become extremely mainstream today. Everyone is familiar with streaming, so the psychological barriers to accessing games via streaming vs cable have diminished dramatically.

(07-12-2020 09:37 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-11-2020 10:43 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Right now the people in danger of actually being culled are people on the margins. To find people on the margins I suggest looking for high student fees. That's going to invariably get you an alarming number of MAC schools and some C-USA/Sun Belt schools.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/education/h...s-n1145171

https://georgiastatesignal.com/georgia-s...s-country/

The student fee will obviously fall if enrollment falters, but can you even legally charge a student fee for a service you publicly announce you can’t offer? By the way—-this is why I don’t think “student athletes” are getting screwed by the schools. Most schools are losing money on college athletics and it’s the students who are effectively paying for much of the costs to cover the athletes, seems to me regular students are getting screwed way worse than athletes.

Well it depends on where by "worse" you mean quantitatively or qualitatively. In a quantity sense, all students are victims of athletic fees. In contrast, not all athletes get hammered by NCAA (school) rules against NIL and direct pay, because many have no market value beyond their scholarship. But qualitatively, the stars get hammered very badly, because they could make a lot more in NIL and pay, and far more than what any regular student gets hammered for in fees.

(07-10-2020 11:14 AM)EigenEagle Wrote:  

(07-10-2020 10:42 AM)HiddenDragon Wrote:  CUSA, MAC, and Sun Belt are about to learn a valuable lesson on how not to be so reliant on big pay days from P5 schools to help sustain their operating cost. I think the AAC and MWC while affected by what the P5 does is not has hampered as the other 3 conferences are (but I could be wrong).

Eventually, these 3 conferences are going to have to figure out another way to generate income or their shelf life could be expiring sooner rather than later.

Most of the MWC play these games.

These are the money games being lost for MWC schools:
New Mexico at USC $950,000
New Mexico at Mississippi State $1 million
Fresno State at Texas A&M $1.3 million
Fresno State at Colorado $600,000
San Jose State at Penn State $1.5 million
Nevada at Arkansas $1.5 million
Utah State at Washington $1.5 million
Air Force at Purdue $800,000

New Mexico, Fresno State, San Jose State, Nevada and Utah State will be hurt by the loss of these non-conference games. Air Force doesn't usually play that many of these money games and they will be fine. But there are six schools that are not playing any money games and they will be hurt maybe even more by the loss of games against power conference schools.

These are the home games being lost against power conference schools:
Cal at UNLV
ASU at UNLV
UCLA at SDSU
UCLA at Hawaii
Florida State at Boise State
Utah at Wyoming
Colorado at CSU
Washington State at Utah State

These are games that would be televised nationally on some Fox or FS1 or CBSSN. UNLV is really getting hurt. The Cal and ASU would have been played in the new Raiders Stadium. UNLV also has a home game against Louisiana Tech. Boise State's home game with Florida State has not been officially cancelled, but is not looking good. Boise State also has home games with Georgia Southern and BYU.

As for Sun Belt schools, I know that my school, Texas State, is going to lose out. They had home non-conference games with SMU, UTSA, and Ohio. Their lone road non-conference game was at New Mexico State. Tough to lose this schedule. SMU and UTSA would have sold out, in a normal year.

(07-12-2020 09:37 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The student fee will obviously fall if enrollment falters, but can you even legally charge a student fee for a service you publicly announce you can’t offer?

This is going to be a real question for schools this fall. If fall sports are cancelled altogether, there's no basis for charging a student fee tied to varsity sports. If the student athletic facilities are closed, there's also no basis for charging a fee tied to student recreational facilities and/or intramural sports.

It's bad enough that colleges are going to be charging full tuition for a semester that is entirely or almost entirely online -- to borrow that quote from a Stanford student earlier this year, "paying Stanford prices for a University of Phoenix experience". Students and parents should definitely push back on student athletic fees for the fall and maybe for the entire school year.

(07-12-2020 09:54 AM)HiddenDragon Wrote:  

(07-12-2020 09:34 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-11-2020 10:08 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-11-2020 09:26 AM)HiddenDragon Wrote:  

(07-11-2020 08:39 AM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote:  C-USA and the MAC go to opposite extremes. C-USA has pretty much all Saturday games, but nothing on ESPN. Games are very hard to find.......

Had to stop you right there. Games are not hard to find anymore. Either they are on some network or they aren't. You do not have to put a whole lot of effort to finding a CUSA, Sun Belt, or MAC game. That whole "it's hard to find a game" excuse jumped the shark a long time ago.

Now you may not like the network or the streaming service the game is being shown but the games are very accessible.

Yes, one of the quiet revolutions of the past 5 years is how streaming has basically canceled the "exposure" argument for media deals. Nowadays, basically all FBS games by everyone are available on some platform, and as everyone is now used to streaming, it's not the big deal to have your stuff "relegated" to a streaming platform the way say having games on ESPN3 was viewed five years ago.

There really is no "exposure" component to media deals anymore, in the old (really, very recent) sense of "money vs exposure". Everyone has exposure, so it's all about money.

There are still major differences in exposure. Platforms matter in that regard. Yes, all will allow your most loyal fans to follow your games. However, some platforms are much more likely to draw more causal viewers to your game than others.

Exposure vs accessibility are two separate entities in my opinion. Are games that are ESPN provides more exposure than a game on Facebook? I would say yes. But on the hand, I don't have ESPN (I do have ESPN Plus) and I would say more people have a Facebook account than ESPN so does that mean accessibility to Facebook is easier than ESPN? I would say yes. No it doesn't mean more people will watch a game on Facebook but that could change over time.

I agree with this. Where I used to live, we used to get local feeds from Philly and the Lehigh Valley. One local channel was a Christian station that rarely had any original content, but would play some programming based out of Bethlehem and Easton. The weird thing was, it carried the Lafayette basketball games? So, for the few million of us in and around Philly, the Delaware, and Lehigh Valleys, there was Lafayette hoops. I wouldn’t say that access helped with exposure. The quality of the broadcast was pretty much the same as almost closed circuit; one camera to follow the ball and the court, and maybe one across the court to get shots of the bench from time to time (and I think that’s a stretch from what I can recall; it was basic).

This stuff is out there. Some of it was far more difficult to access than others then than now, but debatable given the price of access and what kind of exposure it really has. And quality of the broadcast.

(07-10-2020 10:42 AM)HiddenDragon Wrote:  CUSA, MAC, and Sun Belt are about to learn a valuable lesson on how not to be so reliant on big pay days from P5 schools to help sustain their operating cost. I think the AAC and MWC while affected by what the P5 does is not has hampered as the other 3 conferences are (but I could be wrong).

Eventually, these 3 conferences are going to have to figure out another way to generate income or their shelf life could be expiring sooner rather than later.

Almost no one gets that much of budget from body bag games. 11 to 15 mil is a real small G5 budget. and 1.5 mil for a body bag game would be 10%. Most G5 schools are in the 15 to 40 mil range, so you would at most be looking at 4 to 10%.

(07-12-2020 05:01 PM)goodknightfl Wrote:  

(07-10-2020 10:42 AM)HiddenDragon Wrote:  CUSA, MAC, and Sun Belt are about to learn a valuable lesson on how not to be so reliant on big pay days from P5 schools to help sustain their operating cost. I think the AAC and MWC while affected by what the P5 does is not has hampered as the other 3 conferences are (but I could be wrong).

Eventually, these 3 conferences are going to have to figure out another way to generate income or their shelf life could be expiring sooner rather than later.

Almost no one gets that much of budget from body bag games. 11 to 15 mil is a real small G5 budget. and 1.5 mil for a body bag game would be 10%. Most G5 schools are in the 15 to 40 mil range, so you would at most be looking at 4 to 10%.

With tickets, television, and donations, if 4-10% of your entire budget is covered by one body-bag game, that is significant. Disproportionate at least, and that logic on the dependency is quite scary.

(07-10-2020 11:17 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(07-10-2020 10:42 AM)HiddenDragon Wrote:  CUSA, MAC, and Sun Belt are about to learn a valuable lesson on how not to be so reliant on big pay days from P5 schools to help sustain their operating cost. I think the AAC and MWC while affected by what the P5 does is not has hampered as the other 3 conferences are (but I could be wrong).

Eventually, these 3 conferences are going to have to figure out another way to generate income or their shelf life could be expiring sooner rather than later.

Is there anyone who gets even 20% that way? Handful I've looked at its like 5% and less.

I listened to an interview with the Ark. St AD trying to find an update on the Memphis game. I hope they keep the game on the schedule as travel would be super easy for the team. Mohajir said the Michigan game is 5% of the total budget and 20+% of fball revenue. I've heard him talk before about money games, their importance and how the bigger pay days are becoming harder and harder to find.

Lots of good financial info in this interview
https://soundcloud.com/1037thebuzz/terry...ir-7-14-20

(07-15-2020 03:15 PM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  

(07-10-2020 11:17 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(07-10-2020 10:42 AM)HiddenDragon Wrote:  CUSA, MAC, and Sun Belt are about to learn a valuable lesson on how not to be so reliant on big pay days from P5 schools to help sustain their operating cost. I think the AAC and MWC while affected by what the P5 does is not has hampered as the other 3 conferences are (but I could be wrong).

Eventually, these 3 conferences are going to have to figure out another way to generate income or their shelf life could be expiring sooner rather than later.

Is there anyone who gets even 20% that way? Handful I've looked at its like 5% and less.

I listened to an interview with the Ark. St AD trying to find an update on the Memphis game. I hope they keep the game on the schedule as travel would be super easy for the team. Mohajir said the Michigan game is 5% of the total budget and 20+% of fball revenue. I've heard him talk before about money games, their importance and how the bigger pay days are becoming harder and harder to find.

Lots of good financial info in this interview
https://soundcloud.com/1037thebuzz/terry...ir-7-14-20

I think I heard an AD from one of the MAC schools who was scheduled to play two P5 schools with huge paydays and he talked about how huge of an impact not playing those games would affect their athletic budget. I think he said his program was scheduled get around 3.5 million dollars combined for both games. That's huge!

(07-11-2020 07:34 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(07-10-2020 11:14 AM)Pir8inRichmond Wrote:  We are in the beginning stage of the culling of higher ed and college athletics. There’s a lot of us in D1 who are in major trouble, ECU included.

I think ECU is safe. It is more about the schools that are struggling to get fans in the seats for football.

If I am a top MAC school like CMU, WMU, Northern Illinois, Ohio U. or Toledo? I will try and find a way out of dodge to get away from the Tuesday, Wednsday and Thursday night games for Friday nights and Saturday games by trying to get into conferences like C-USA or the AAC. Their attendance took a nose dive.

These days what division you play in is more tied to TV contracts than anything else.

With the MAC signing a 100 million dollar, 10 year TV deal for midweek that firmly keeps them part of the FBS equation.

For another conference to better that for Ohio or NIU ect. that would require not only topping that deal but also making up for increased travel cost of 2 million+

That would mean the conference TV deal would need to be in the neighborhood of 4 to 5 million per and I can't forsee that as possible unless Temple, Cincinnati and Memphis were included which isnt happening since they already have the AAC.

A new eastern G5 with Marshall, ODU, Charlotte, App St and the Georgia schools probably tops out at 1 million per, which is better than what they are making now and less travel but still doesn't stack up against what the MAC has.

Especially when you consider the MAC has built up regional post season sites like Detroit for FB championship and Cleveland for BB championship, shared officiating with the B1G too. Its way better setup than what the other G5 conferences have.

We'll see where this goes, but UMass was expecting to turn a profit this year. 4.5M -5M have already been trimmed in anticipation of budget cuts. Lossing the buy games will hurt, but adjustments will be made.

Quote:The athletic department was on target to finish fiscal year 2020 with a surplus, according to Bamford. That surplus though will be turned over to the university to help with its losses.

UMass is just over two weeks into fiscal year 2021. While Bamford hasn’t received his budget yet, he knew he had to cut $4.5-5 million out of the previous year’s budget of $40 million.

While he knows that figure will probably grow, he has already taken steps to address the situation. About $4.5 million has been saved between furloughs, voluntary coach and administration salary reductions, and buyouts as part of the Voluntary Separation Incentive Program (early retirements/voluntary resignation).

“We’re waiting to see what the remaining landscape is,” Bamford said. “The great unknown of the next 60 days could create some challenges for us.”

Mike Moran can be reached at mmoran@gazettenet.com.

https://www.gazettenet.com/UMass-AD-Ryan...s-35238165