(09-17-2021 09:33 AM)MUther Wrote:  This is the problem with numbers and not up to date numbers at that.

AAC will have to redo their contract immediately to the worse unless they get the MWC teams that ESPN covets. It's why they are mentioned as targets.

The MAC will remain the same

CUSA is going to lose as many as 4-5 teams, maybe more and one of them will be the ratings leader most years. Their money is going to drop, significantly.

The Sunbelt has a raise already not reflected in those numbers. Not AAC current money but much better than what is there for the last 2 years. And ESPN has told them there is more available to them if they get a few teams from CUSA that ESPN covets.

If the MWC stands pat they will be unchanged and may in fact lose revenue depending on who the Sunbelt adds and who the AAC can lure over. Either one can drop their status from solid #2 to #3 or worse.

Conferences that can add teams that ESPN doesn't control but would like to are going to get more money from them to cover the cost of those teams. It saves them from having to pay for a whole new conference. They're picking a la cart who they want and encouraging the AAC and Sunbelt to get them. ESPN is going to get UAB and Marshall, either way. I have no idea who they're taking after that. But rest assured CUSA is cooked and will be squarely at the bottom of that money list in 2 years.

None of the teams leaving CUSA to the AAC are anywhere close to the most valuable teams. So not sure why the price per team would drop, it might actually increase.

SBC deal was so bad they didn’t release the numbers. If it was a significant increase you can bet your ass they would have released the numbers bragging about it. The ONLY way the SBC gets a significant increase is if they can poach CUSA teams. From the numbers I see, I have no idea why anyone would leave CUSA for the SBC.

(09-17-2021 09:58 AM)49ShadesOfGreen Wrote:  

(09-17-2021 12:24 AM)EagleNationRising Wrote:  Has anyone vetted ANY of these numbers? Where did this guy off of herdfans get this info?

I have questioned the hype that the Sun Belt all the sudden had way more money than CUSA. Historically.. Like before last year CUSA budgets tended to be about 10 million more with a better (money) TV contract.

Yeah. Looks to me like SBC had their little run in football and made more in one category (CFP Payout).... they have twisted that narrative to claim they make more over all. It’s not even close.... CUSA is still their daddy until proven otherwise.

Question is, which SBC teams are we going to poach if we lose teams, or do we go after Liberty and JMU?

(09-17-2021 09:33 AM)MUther Wrote:  This is the problem with numbers and not up to date numbers at that.

AAC will have to redo their contract immediately to the worse unless they get the MWC teams that ESPN covets. It's why they are mentioned as targets.

The MAC will remain the same

CUSA is going to lose as many as 4-5 teams, maybe more and one of them will be the ratings leader most years. Their money is going to drop, significantly.

The Sunbelt has a raise already not reflected in those numbers. Not AAC current money but much better than what is there for the last 2 years. And ESPN has told them there is more available to them if they get a few teams from CUSA that ESPN covets.

If the MWC stands pat they will be unchanged and may in fact lose revenue depending on who the Sunbelt adds and who the AAC can lure over. Either one can drop their status from solid #2 to #3 or worse.

Conferences that can add teams that ESPN doesn't control but would like to are going to get more money from them to cover the cost of those teams. It saves them from having to pay for a whole new conference. They're picking a la cart who they want and encouraging the AAC and Sunbelt to get them. ESPN is going to get UAB and Marshall, either way. I have no idea who they're taking after that. But rest assured CUSA is cooked and will be squarely at the bottom of that money list in 2 years.

But ESPN won't be pushing Liberty for any conference. That's where Coosa needs to swoop in.

(09-17-2021 09:06 AM)herdfan129 Wrote:  Well whatever the reasons are, as we can see from the numbers. CUSA makes more money as a conference and more money per team. If we lose a few teams then the average per team will only increase in CUSA.

Keep in mind that Your TV partners will likely cut your TV revenue when you lose teams to the AAC. TV contracts all have agreements that payouts can change if membership is gained or lost.

(09-17-2021 10:24 AM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(09-17-2021 09:06 AM)herdfan129 Wrote:  Well whatever the reasons are, as we can see from the numbers. CUSA makes more money as a conference and more money per team. If we lose a few teams then the average per team will only increase in CUSA.

Keep in mind that Your TV partners will likely cut your TV revenue when you lose teams to the AAC. TV contracts all have agreements that payouts can change if membership is gained or lost.

Marshall is by far the most valuable TV brand in this conference which is proven by the fact the TV executives pick more of our games than anyone else.

We can cross that bridge when we get there but as of today, it’s a fact that CUSA gets more money. Maybe we get a pay increase if some of the SBC teams join CUSA.

(09-16-2021 08:31 PM)herdfan129 Wrote:  One of the posters pembrook burrows III posted this info on our main message board over at www.herdfans.com

*****************************************************************

I have obtained the Form 990s for the G5 conferences for their fiscal years ending June 30, 2019, and June 30, 2020. Obviously, June 30, 2021 Form 990s have not yet been filed.

In terms of dollars, the AAC ranks as the clear top dog in the G5, with the Sun Belt Conference as the poor man.

Total revenues of each conference are set forth below.

AAC 2019 $73,203,230
MWC 2019 $57,058,330
CUSA 2019 $44,250,642
MAC 2019 $30,848,489
SBC 2019 $33,072,881

AAC 2020 $111,278,729
MWC 2020 $ (not available)
CUSA 2020 $40,861,629
MAC 2020 $32,241,698
SBC 2020 $31,584,812

Revenues from TV/media rights are interesting. These amounts are included in the total revenues above.

AAC 2019 $22,726,100
MWC 2019 $14,232,915
CUSA 2019 $6,968,263
MAC 2019 $8,639,734
SBC 2019 $3,920,523

AAC 2020 $43,988,700
MWC 2020 $ (not available)
CUSA 2020 $6,440,156
MAC 2020 $9,186,590
SBC 2020 $2,250,000

By far, the largest expense amounts for each conference are the grants and distributions they make to their member institutions. The total grant/distribution amounts set forth below are net of any membership dues paid to the conferences. The parenthetical amount represents an average grant/distribution amount for each conference member, although these individual amounts can vary widely depending on the formulas used by each conference to hand out the money.

AAC 2019 $49,635,911 ($4,136,326)
MWC 2019 $42,883,422 ($3,898,493)
CUSA 2019 $27,876,250 ($1,991,161)
MAC 2019 $24,116,351 ($2,009,696)
SBC 2019 $17,959,464 ($1,496,622)

AAC 2020 $65,385,468 ($5,029,651)
MWC 2020 $ (not available)
CUSA 2020 $26,620,665 ($1,901,476)
MAC 2020 $24,530,154 ($2,044,180)
SBC 2020 $14,882,160 ($1,240,180)

Below are the highest payouts to an individual conference member in each year.

AAC 2019 $7,476,770 (UCF)
MWC 2019 $ (not available)
CUSA 2019 $2,921,341 (Middle Tennessee)
MAC 2019 $2,393,714 (Toledo)
SBC 2019 $1,621,356 (Georgia St.)

AAC 2020 $8,656,466 (Memphis)
MWC 2020 $ (not available)
CUSA 2020 $2,739,105 (Marshall)
MAC 2020 $2,386,989 (Buffalo)
SBC 2020 $1,386,608 (Georgia St.)

Finally, one way of measuring the financial health of an organization is to look at its net worth - calculated by determining how much its total assets exceed its total liabilities. This calculation taken from the Form 990 of each conference reveals the following:

AAC 2020 $43,315,213
MWC 2020 $ (not available, but was $7,984,041 in 2019)
CUSA 2020 $8,748,914
MAC 2020 $6,431,401
SBC 2020 $6,457,663

One could conclude from all this financial data that a possible move by Marshall to the AAC might be expected to eventually increase revenues by $2-3 million per year on average, or by as much as $5 million per year if Marshall's teams performed exceedingly well in football and/or men's basketball. Conversely, a possible move by Marshall to the SBC might be expected to decrease revenues by $1 to 1.5 million per year. One might question whether the SBC generates enough money to feed an additional mouth or two through expansion, at least without identifying additional sources of revenue through TV/media rights or other means. Perhaps the recent SBC's TV/media contract extension with ESPN announced in July will generate additional dollars, though none were mentioned in the press release. A move by Marshall to the MAC would be, at best, a lateral one financially.

Of course, all of this becomes even more complicated if CUSA teams start dropping off (UAB/FAU to the AAC? ODU to the Atlantic 10?). After the AAC, I do believe CUSA is the most unstable conference. The idea of forming a new conference sounds great, but is not very practical given the fact it would not have access to the football playoffs, would not have access to an auto berth in the NCAA basketball tournaments, and would not have any established TV/media revenue. Getting an additional auto berth in basketball only takes money away from P5 at-large berth contenders, so good luck getting that approved by the NCAA. It would be difficult for any school to abandon its conference affiliation for a new conference venture given this level of uncertainty.

Old Sun Belt media contact ended in 2020. Any numbers here even if true are from the old contact. New contact was estimated to be a 50% increase in media revenue and we have since signed an extension for more exposure and probably more money. I don't really care if any CUSA schools want to come to the Sun Belt or not but let's not pretend the past is the future.

If SBC numbers were so good then they would release those numbers. The only question is, how bad does ESPN want to use the SBC to poach the top CUSA football brands?

All revenue and expense numbers reported by University institutions are a shell game. They don't mean that much. Thats why they all miraculously break even every year. Its all BS.

Its pretty simple, Usm saves lots of money on travel for their athletic programs by moving to the Belt as opposed to staying in Cusa. They will also generate more revenue in the Belt. Each institution makes decisions on what's best for them.

See ya Cusa, and good luck. You're gonna need it!

(09-17-2021 11:37 AM)Reggie Favre Wrote:  All revenue and expense numbers reported by University institutions are a shell game. They don't mean that much. Thats why they all miraculously break even every year. Its all BS.

Its pretty simple, Usm saves lots of money on travel for their athletic programs by moving to the Belt as opposed to staying in Cusa. They will also generate more revenue in the Belt. Each institution makes decisions on what's best for them.

See ya Cusa, and good luck. You're gonna need it!

How would you generate more revenue in the SBC?

(09-17-2021 09:18 AM)herdfan129 Wrote:  

(09-17-2021 09:11 AM)topper1296 Wrote:  Just glad to see some people now realizing that basketball revenue is important at the G5 level and can move the needle for us (I actually brought this up back in March).

Yes. If Marshall stays in CUSA then I want to see this conference make a significant attempt to become a multi bid league. We are close, and it could happen with some commitment.

Honestly, top to bottom, as a football conference CUSA has been what I expected. The big issue is I was ok with bringing in football projects as I thought we were building a multi bid basketball conference. That hasn’t worked out. I’m fine with being an average football conference if we would get our stuff together in basketball and consistently get at least 2 bids to NCAAT every year.

I knew we screwed ourselves with some of the basketball programs we added at the time. Then MTSU and Southern Miss fell off of cliffs, UTEP and Charlotte weren't far behind, UAB was very average for what it's been historical, our teams that won OOC lost in conference games. It was just a really bad mix and timing overall.

(09-17-2021 11:51 AM)herdfan129 Wrote:  

(09-17-2021 11:37 AM)Reggie Favre Wrote:  All revenue and expense numbers reported by University institutions are a shell game. They don't mean that much. Thats why they all miraculously break even every year. Its all BS.

Its pretty simple, Usm saves lots of money on travel for their athletic programs by moving to the Belt as opposed to staying in Cusa. They will also generate more revenue in the Belt. Each institution makes decisions on what's best for them.

See ya Cusa, and good luck. You're gonna need it!

How would you generate more revenue in the SBC?

Thank you for your question. First, since you are only asking about revenue, I'm guessing you are in agreement that our expenses will not be as high in SVC. let's keep that in mind. Its not just about the revenue or just about the expenses, but about the bottom line. They both play a part. So Usm is in the upside with SBC as far as expenses. Now, on to your question about revenue.

Ticket sales will increase. Our fanbase will show up more for Troy, ULL, etc more than UTSA, FIU, etc. On that note, Troy, ULL, etc will also bring more fans than Utsa, Fiu, etc. This increases revenue with Ticket sales, concession and memorabilia sales, etc as well. Also, media rights will increase in the SBC as well. Cusa is essentially Doa with any realignment bc its already dead. We are getting virtually NOTHING from TV contracts with Cusa. Its a joke. Any new contracts will be better with the SBC than Cusa. However, Usm does not have direct control over that. But simply playing teams more regional will both save and increase monies for the athletic program. It will also help in recruiting, rather than hinder it. This results in better teams and even more ticket sales and more revenue.

Thanks again for your question.

(09-17-2021 11:37 AM)Reggie Favre Wrote:  All revenue and expense numbers reported by University institutions are a shell game. They don't mean that much. Thats why they all miraculously break even every year. Its all BS.

Its pretty simple, Usm saves lots of money on travel for their athletic programs by moving to the Belt as opposed to staying in Cusa. They will also generate more revenue in the Belt. Each institution makes decisions on what's best for them.

See ya Cusa, and good luck. You're gonna need it!

Should we tell him that USM is still in C-USA?

(09-17-2021 10:09 AM)herdfan129 Wrote:  

(09-17-2021 09:33 AM)MUther Wrote:  This is the problem with numbers and not up to date numbers at that.

AAC will have to redo their contract immediately to the worse unless they get the MWC teams that ESPN covets. It's why they are mentioned as targets.

The MAC will remain the same

CUSA is going to lose as many as 4-5 teams, maybe more and one of them will be the ratings leader most years. Their money is going to drop, significantly.

The Sunbelt has a raise already not reflected in those numbers. Not AAC current money but much better than what is there for the last 2 years. And ESPN has told them there is more available to them if they get a few teams from CUSA that ESPN covets.

If the MWC stands pat they will be unchanged and may in fact lose revenue depending on who the Sunbelt adds and who the AAC can lure over. Either one can drop their status from solid #2 to #3 or worse.

Conferences that can add teams that ESPN doesn't control but would like to are going to get more money from them to cover the cost of those teams. It saves them from having to pay for a whole new conference. They're picking a la cart who they want and encouraging the AAC and Sunbelt to get them. ESPN is going to get UAB and Marshall, either way. I have no idea who they're taking after that. But rest assured CUSA is cooked and will be squarely at the bottom of that money list in 2 years.

None of the teams leaving CUSA to the AAC are anywhere close to the most valuable teams. So not sure why the price per team would drop, it might actually increase.

SBC deal was so bad they didn’t release the numbers. If it was a significant increase you can bet your ass they would have released the numbers bragging about it. The ONLY way the SBC gets a significant increase is if they can poach CUSA teams. From the numbers I see, I have no idea why anyone would leave CUSA for the SBC.

If we leave and take a few teams with us even to the Sunbelt and say FAU and UAB go to the AAC then the best are gone and there's no good replacements. How do you not see that? CUSA will be clearly last place. And don't forget the playoff money distributed to the conferences based on finish ranking. That can be millions more from last place to first.

Ever stop to think that ESPN told them not to publicize the deal until all this is final. If they can't add any teams the money will be much different than if they do. Why let them know this and start disappointed if we decide not to go? Makes no sense. In any case the new deal didn't make the June 30th publication date for updated numbers. What could they report. It would be unofficial at best. We get less than 500k per team from TV right now in CUSA. The MAC gets double that and the Sunbelt is likely closer to that range or better, now. CUSA will never get more than they are at this moment...ever. Stop doom and gloomin. Every other day your in and then out and this one is over incomplete information and you know it's incomplete.

I just want to add these numbers from the NCAA payouts for CFP and March Madness credits:

2020-2021: https://businessofcollegesports.com/2019...f-payouts/

CUSA: $16,932,474.35

SBC: $18,484,520.85


2019-2020: https://businessofcollegesports.com/2019...f-payouts/

CUSA: $16,932,474.35

SBC: $18,484,520.85


2018-2019: https://businessofcollegesports.com/2018...f-payouts/

CUSA: $15,604,838

SBC: $17,079,796


2017-2018: https://businessofcollegesports.com/2017...f-payouts/

CUSA: $15,411,101

SBC: $14,006,835


2016-2017: https://businessofcollegesports.com/2016...f-payouts/

CUSA: $13,929,315

SBC: $17,115,246


CUSA TOTAL: 78810202.7

SBC TOTAL: 85170918.7


CUSA per team: 5629300

SBC per team: 8517092

Difference: 2,8877,92 more for SBC teams




NCAA BB Credits:

Source: https://apnews.com/article/north-america...952c799bdb

Credit value: 282,100 each

CUSA: 9

SBC: 6

CUSA: 2538900 total / $181350 per team

SBC: 1692600 total / $169260 per team

Difference: CUSA: $12,090 more per team

(09-17-2021 11:08 AM)herdfan129 Wrote:  If SBC numbers were so good then they would release those numbers. The only question is, how bad does ESPN want to use the SBC to poach the top CUSA football brands?

That's an assumption and a bad one. All of those schools will have to release their financials at some point. Makes more sense that they were asked to hold off announcement for the time being as that deal was made just before the poop hit the fan and ESPN was busy colluding with the AAC to bring down the Big 12.

So just based on CFP and NCAA Credit payouts the SBC teams are making more than $565,000 more each year than the CUSA teams.


That's not including media monies, or sponsorships, etc. Just payouts.

(09-17-2021 12:59 PM)Yosef Himself Wrote:  I just want to add these numbers from the NCAA payouts for CFP and March Madness credits:

2020-2021: https://businessofcollegesports.com/2019...f-payouts/

CUSA: $16,932,474.35

SBC: $18,484,520.85


2019-2020: https://businessofcollegesports.com/2019...f-payouts/

CUSA: $16,932,474.35

SBC: $18,484,520.85


2018-2019: https://businessofcollegesports.com/2018...f-payouts/

CUSA: $15,604,838

SBC: $17,079,796


2017-2018: https://businessofcollegesports.com/2017...f-payouts/

CUSA: $15,411,101

SBC: $14,006,835


2016-2017: https://businessofcollegesports.com/2016...f-payouts/

CUSA: $13,929,315

SBC: $17,115,246


CUSA TOTAL: 78810202.7

SBC TOTAL: 85170918.7


CUSA per team: 5629300

SBC per team: 8517092

Difference: 2,8877,92 more for SBC teams




NCAA BB Credits:

Source: https://apnews.com/article/north-america...952c799bdb

Credit value: 282,100 each

CUSA: 9

SBC: 6

CUSA: 2538900 total / $181350 per team

SBC: 1692600 total / $169260 per team

Difference: CUSA: $12,090 more per team

Thank you. These guys are breaking their necks trying to see which way the wind is blowing every second of every day. Just sit back and enjoy the breeze. The rest will take care of itself.

(09-17-2021 11:37 AM)Reggie Favre Wrote:  All revenue and expense numbers reported by University institutions are a shell game. They don't mean that much. Thats why they all miraculously break even every year. Its all BS.

Its pretty simple, Usm saves lots of money on travel for their athletic programs by moving to the Belt as opposed to staying in Cusa. They will also generate more revenue in the Belt. Each institution makes decisions on what's best for them.

See ya Cusa, and good luck. You're gonna need it!

(09-17-2021 12:28 PM)Reggie Favre Wrote:  

(09-17-2021 11:51 AM)herdfan129 Wrote:  

(09-17-2021 11:37 AM)Reggie Favre Wrote:  All revenue and expense numbers reported by University institutions are a shell game. They don't mean that much. Thats why they all miraculously break even every year. Its all BS.

Its pretty simple, Usm saves lots of money on travel for their athletic programs by moving to the Belt as opposed to staying in Cusa. They will also generate more revenue in the Belt. Each institution makes decisions on what's best for them.

See ya Cusa, and good luck. You're gonna need it!

How would you generate more revenue in the SBC?

Thank you for your question. First, since you are only asking about revenue, I'm guessing you are in agreement that our expenses will not be as high in SVC. let's keep that in mind. Its not just about the revenue or just about the expenses, but about the bottom line. They both play a part. So Usm is in the upside with SBC as far as expenses. Now, on to your question about revenue.

Ticket sales will increase. Our fanbase will show up more for Troy, ULL, etc more than UTSA, FIU, etc. On that note, Troy, ULL, etc will also bring more fans than Utsa, Fiu, etc. This increases revenue with Ticket sales, concession and memorabilia sales, etc as well. Also, media rights will increase in the SBC as well. Cusa is essentially Doa with any realignment bc its already dead. We are getting virtually NOTHING from TV contracts with Cusa. Its a joke. Any new contracts will be better with the SBC than Cusa. However, Usm does not have direct control over that. But simply playing teams more regional will both save and increase monies for the athletic program. It will also help in recruiting, rather than hinder it. This results in better teams and even more ticket sales and more revenue.

Thanks again for your question.

Oh. So in a nutshell you could have said: “we have no way to know we will get more money from the SBC revenue distribution. We just hope to get more money from ticket sales by playing games on Tuesday and Weds nights.”

(09-17-2021 12:54 PM)ODU2011 Wrote:  Should we tell him that USM is still in C-USA?

If you’re going to, you’d better not wait long.