Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
CUSA weighing 16-team model
Author Message
Louis Kitton Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,000
Joined: Nov 2010
Reputation: 27
I Root For: High Fashion
Location: Paris Online
Post: #61
RE: CUSA weighing 16-team model
(04-09-2013 09:05 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(04-09-2013 06:39 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  This is the CUSA we are talking about not a major conference. It matters less about getting into more States because let's face it, the conference is never going to have a conference network that pays out big. What the conference needs are competitive programs. Arkansas State and ULL provide that and they have a proven record in doing so.

So what if both of them have larger schools in their State that draw more fans? Once again, this is CUSA. For that matter so does Missouri State and I bet UL has more of a following in Louisiana than Missouri State does in Missouri.

Ark State and ULL will get you to bowls.

As far as getting to 16....take a look at all the schools involved and slice them into 4 divisions instead of two. Conferences are preparing.

A Sun Belt that has Arkansas State and Louisiana has a chance to finish ahead of CUSA in the CFP distribution based on performance. A Sun Belt without them is far less likely to do that.

Considering the millions involved, adding those two to assure CUSA never finishes last among the five and maybe contends for the top spots will generate more money for CUSA than TV agreeing to increase the TV deal so the per team remains the same.

That is a very good point that ASU/ULL would be able to increase CUSA's overall football performance and keep it ahead of the SBC.

A crucial thing for CUSA right now as they have so many young programs in the football conference (UTSA, ODU, Charlotte).
04-09-2013 12:50 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
HP-TBDPITL Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,495
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 82
I Root For: College Sports
Location:
Post: #62
RE: CUSA weighing 16-team model
(04-09-2013 06:39 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  This is the CUSA we are talking about not a major conference. It matters less about getting into more States because let's face it, the conference is never going to have a conference network that pays out big. What the conference needs are competitive programs. Arkansas State and ULL provide that and they have a proven record in doing so.

So what if both of them have larger schools in their State that draw more fans? Once again, this is CUSA. For that matter so does Missouri State and I bet UL has more of a following in Louisiana than Missouri State does in Missouri.

Ark State and ULL will get you to bowls.

As far as getting to 16....take a look at all the schools involved and slice them into 4 divisions instead of two. Conferences are preparing.

Yes...thank you for some clarity....lower level conferences are VERY concerned with expenses...and their payouts are already fairly small with no way to generate revenue in some cases without having "more balls in the lottery". Thats why 16 can make sense...save everyone travel money...like flying from ODU to UTEP...as well as get the possibility of more NCAA units, more Bowls, more possibility of G5 Bowl. It can also keep other conferences down...in this case the SBC, which can not utilize their revenue against CUSA.
04-09-2013 01:32 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RUScarlets Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,141
Joined: May 2012
Reputation: 176
I Root For: Rutgers
Location:
Post: #63
RE: CUSA weighing 16-team model
Cherry pick to stay in the game, just as the AAC will cherry pick C-USA, and the ACC to the AAC. That's the only way to close the gap. I think the MWC has sort of plateaued in that nobody else wants any of their schools. Still a darn good conference on its own merits. It's still going to come down to MWC vs AAC and who can position themselves to capture an AQ slot for itself down the line after 12 years time, or whenever the contract is renegotiated. Heck, it may come down to MWC vs ACC when all is said and done, if the ACC continues to get raided.

I don't think the MAC and Sun Belt can ever close the gap to that second tier, given their situations. MAC just doesn't have the foot print. I believe Conf-USA can surpass the AAC assuming the ACC continues to raid its best programs and the AAC cannot supplement effectively, in terms of choosing the wrong schools, or sustaining enough damage that schools no longer deem the AAC desirable. Losing UConn/UC, or UCF/USF, and Houston basically kills the AAC.
(This post was last modified: 04-09-2013 03:23 PM by RUScarlets.)
04-09-2013 03:23 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
He1nousOne Offline
The One you Love to Hate.
*

Posts: 13,285
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 215
I Root For: Iowa/ASU
Location: Arizona
Post: #64
RE: CUSA weighing 16-team model
(04-09-2013 09:05 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(04-09-2013 06:39 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  This is the CUSA we are talking about not a major conference. It matters less about getting into more States because let's face it, the conference is never going to have a conference network that pays out big. What the conference needs are competitive programs. Arkansas State and ULL provide that and they have a proven record in doing so.

So what if both of them have larger schools in their State that draw more fans? Once again, this is CUSA. For that matter so does Missouri State and I bet UL has more of a following in Louisiana than Missouri State does in Missouri.

Ark State and ULL will get you to bowls.

As far as getting to 16....take a look at all the schools involved and slice them into 4 divisions instead of two. Conferences are preparing.

A Sun Belt that has Arkansas State and Louisiana has a chance to finish ahead of CUSA in the CFP distribution based on performance. A Sun Belt without them is far less likely to do that.

Considering the millions involved, adding those two to assure CUSA never finishes last among the five and maybe contends for the top spots will generate more money for CUSA than TV agreeing to increase the TV deal so the per team remains the same.

Yeah, that is rather devious thinking but that is how the wolves farther down the pecking order act when trying to get their share of a kill.

All the talk about CUSA taking other schools reminds me of how folks talk about the Major Conferences and realignment. The fact of the matter is that factors for realignment at the lower conferences are different. Performance does mean a whole lot more than bringing a new State into the conference. Most of these teams don't carry their States anyways. They bring in fans with success not by simply existing.
04-09-2013 07:38 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
GoAppsGo92 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,700
Joined: Feb 2011
Reputation: 56
I Root For: TheMountaineers
Location:
Post: #65
RE: CUSA weighing 16-team model
(04-09-2013 07:38 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  
(04-09-2013 09:05 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(04-09-2013 06:39 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  This is the CUSA we are talking about not a major conference. It matters less about getting into more States because let's face it, the conference is never going to have a conference network that pays out big. What the conference needs are competitive programs. Arkansas State and ULL provide that and they have a proven record in doing so.

So what if both of them have larger schools in their State that draw more fans? Once again, this is CUSA. For that matter so does Missouri State and I bet UL has more of a following in Louisiana than Missouri State does in Missouri.

Ark State and ULL will get you to bowls.

As far as getting to 16....take a look at all the schools involved and slice them into 4 divisions instead of two. Conferences are preparing.

A Sun Belt that has Arkansas State and Louisiana has a chance to finish ahead of CUSA in the CFP distribution based on performance. A Sun Belt without them is far less likely to do that.

Considering the millions involved, adding those two to assure CUSA never finishes last among the five and maybe contends for the top spots will generate more money for CUSA than TV agreeing to increase the TV deal so the per team remains the same.

Yeah, that is rather devious thinking but that is how the wolves farther down the pecking order act when trying to get their share of a kill.

All the talk about CUSA taking other schools reminds me of how folks talk about the Major Conferences and realignment. The fact of the matter is that factors for realignment at the lower conferences are different. Performance does mean a whole lot more than bringing a new State into the conference. Most of these teams don't carry their States anyways. They bring in fans with success not by simply existing.

But, but that's not what CUSA DID. If they were thinking that way, they take stAte and ULL BEFORE the directional Florida's and WKU. They didn't. IF, and I mean IF CUSA goes to 16 it will be to insulate them from future losses due to movements at the top. If they are interested in stAte and ULL, they are not going anywhere. There is no rush. As much fun as talking about all this is, I think we are at the end of this round. I'll say this: IF CUSA expands beyond 14, it is a sheer desperation move on their part. CUSA won't kill the SBC and they know it, so in the end, it comes down to the CUSA and SBC seeing how their bets pan out. CUSA has made some very interesting choices...
04-09-2013 09:28 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ark30inf Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 11,639
Joined: Oct 2007
Reputation: 588
I Root For: Arkansas State
Location:
Post: #66
RE: CUSA weighing 16-team model
(04-09-2013 09:28 PM)GoAppsGo92 Wrote:  
(04-09-2013 07:38 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  
(04-09-2013 09:05 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(04-09-2013 06:39 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  This is the CUSA we are talking about not a major conference. It matters less about getting into more States because let's face it, the conference is never going to have a conference network that pays out big. What the conference needs are competitive programs. Arkansas State and ULL provide that and they have a proven record in doing so.

So what if both of them have larger schools in their State that draw more fans? Once again, this is CUSA. For that matter so does Missouri State and I bet UL has more of a following in Louisiana than Missouri State does in Missouri.

Ark State and ULL will get you to bowls.

As far as getting to 16....take a look at all the schools involved and slice them into 4 divisions instead of two. Conferences are preparing.

A Sun Belt that has Arkansas State and Louisiana has a chance to finish ahead of CUSA in the CFP distribution based on performance. A Sun Belt without them is far less likely to do that.

Considering the millions involved, adding those two to assure CUSA never finishes last among the five and maybe contends for the top spots will generate more money for CUSA than TV agreeing to increase the TV deal so the per team remains the same.

Yeah, that is rather devious thinking but that is how the wolves farther down the pecking order act when trying to get their share of a kill.

All the talk about CUSA taking other schools reminds me of how folks talk about the Major Conferences and realignment. The fact of the matter is that factors for realignment at the lower conferences are different. Performance does mean a whole lot more than bringing a new State into the conference. Most of these teams don't carry their States anyways. They bring in fans with success not by simply existing.

But, but that's not what CUSA DID. If they were thinking that way, they take stAte and ULL BEFORE the directional Florida's and WKU. They didn't. IF, and I mean IF CUSA goes to 16 it will be to insulate them from future losses due to movements at the top. If they are interested in stAte and ULL, they are not going anywhere. There is no rush. As much fun as talking about all this is, I think we are at the end of this round. I'll say this: IF CUSA expands beyond 14, it is a sheer desperation move on their part. CUSA won't kill the SBC and they know it, so in the end, it comes down to the CUSA and SBC seeing how their bets pan out. CUSA has made some very interesting choices...

CUSA's strategy keeps morphing. It started out as a market strategy and to help eastern geography. Those adds apparently led them to question their football prowess so they added LaTech from a small market town to beef that up and help western geography (particularly USM). Next move was a combo market/football move that was geographically acceptable to all. WKU was a rivalry/basketball move that didn't hurt football and satisfied the east.

The next move should be about tying the geographic footprint together without hurting football/basketball moves they already made. stAte and UL as a package are about the only two that fit that geography and are pretty good football programs and don't hurt basketball. Both those schools can go east/west as needed if there are CUSA defections and be comfortable either way.

I base that on my assumption that CUSA actually cares about having a rational balanced alignment. That may not be the case, they may be willing to risk a bit of geographic imbalance if they are focusing on some other aspect.
04-09-2013 10:48 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wedge Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 19,862
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 964
I Root For: California
Location: IV, V, VI, IX
Post: #67
RE: CUSA weighing 16-team model
(04-09-2013 09:28 PM)GoAppsGo92 Wrote:  IF, and I mean IF CUSA goes to 16 it will be to insulate them from future losses due to movements at the top. If they are interested in stAte and ULL, they are not going anywhere. There is no rush. As much fun as talking about all this is, I think we are at the end of this round. I'll say this: IF CUSA expands beyond 14, it is a sheer desperation move on their part. CUSA won't kill the SBC and they know it,

I think the first bolded passage is correct, but the second one isn't. CUSA can diminish the SBC by attrition a couple of schools at a time if they really want to (though that doesn't appear to be their plan). Ark State and La-Lafayette are good examples -- losing them would diminish the SBC because the league would be replacing two of the SBC's bowl teams in 2011/2012 with more FCS move-ups. That's a bigger hit to SBC football than replacing the F_U's.
04-10-2013 12:10 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
AFAfan Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 150
Joined: Aug 2011
Reputation: 16
I Root For: MWC
Location:
Post: #68
RE: CUSA weighing 16-team model
(04-08-2013 04:33 PM)billings Wrote:  
(04-08-2013 03:58 PM)chrisattsu Wrote:  
(04-08-2013 03:26 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(04-08-2013 02:58 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  Take UTEP for example. It has nothing in common with the vast majority of schools in C-USA. The only school left we have history with is Rice but it's been since 1996. UAB, Marshall and Southern Miss since 2005 which is just 8 years.

UTEP's history is with the MWC schools. It's in the Mountain Time zone and like most MWC schools, it's the only game in town. That's where we belong but the MWC won't expand anytime soon unless BYU goes back which is very unlikely. But it is what it is and we better make the best of it while in C-USA. 04-cheers

What UTEP needs is a 14th or 14th, 15th, 16th school that makes sense for MWC.

Guy I talked to today who is very dialed in nationally says UTEP would be in MWC if there were a 14th school the MWC can agree on.

Would the MWC be willing to take another Texas school (UTSA/UNT/TXST) to get to 14?

My understanding is that UTSA also had a MWC invite and Choose CUSA over the MWC. However that was before Tulsa, Tulane, ECU etc all bailed to the BE and before the MWC pulled Boise and SDSU back into the league with a new TV deal that is significantly better then the CUSA contract.

doubt UNT or Texas State do much. Rice now maybe but don't know

I think adding UTEP and Rice would be decent additions to the MWC as it gets the conference into the second most populated state in the country. This move would add media markets and recruiting grounds, renew past rivalries, improve the academic prestige, etc. Looks similar to the WAC16, but in divisions and not pods:

Mountain: USU, Wyoming, AFA, CSU, UNM, UTEP, Rice
WEST: Hawaii, SDSU, Fresno, SJSU, UNLV, Nevada, BSU

Who knows though, maybe CUSA is preparing for a Mountain West raid by adding more members now 05-stirthepot
04-10-2013 01:35 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
GoAppsGo92 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,700
Joined: Feb 2011
Reputation: 56
I Root For: TheMountaineers
Location:
Post: #69
RE: CUSA weighing 16-team model
(04-10-2013 12:10 AM)Wedge Wrote:  
(04-09-2013 09:28 PM)GoAppsGo92 Wrote:  IF, and I mean IF CUSA goes to 16 it will be to insulate them from future losses due to movements at the top. If they are interested in stAte and ULL, they are not going anywhere. There is no rush. As much fun as talking about all this is, I think we are at the end of this round. I'll say this: IF CUSA expands beyond 14, it is a sheer desperation move on their part. CUSA won't kill the SBC and they know it,

I think the first bolded passage is correct, but the second one isn't. CUSA can diminish the SBC by attrition a couple of schools at a time if they really want to (though that doesn't appear to be their plan). Ark State and La-Lafayette are good examples -- losing them would diminish the SBC because the league would be replacing two of the SBC's bowl teams in 2011/2012 with more FCS move-ups. That's a bigger hit to SBC football than replacing the F_U's.

Again, if that was their plan, they would have done it already. There is, and hasn't been, anything to stop them and taking stAte and ULL would have made more sense before 3 of the 4 most recent invites. My opinion is that CUSA membership has not even decided if 16 teams is in their best interest, and we've all decided what teams they are going to pick. I think the membership is clearly divided on this issue and what it means for revenue distribution and scheduling.
04-10-2013 06:26 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 25,818
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 967
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #70
RE: CUSA weighing 16-team model
Define "kill" in this marketplace.

Did the MWC and CUSA and Sun Belt "kill" the WAC? Well they are out of the business of football for now but still exists as a Division I league quite honestly with NMSU and Idaho being football only in the Sun Belt and Texas State sitting there not quite in the WAC footprint outlier in the Sun Belt it is entirely possible that if Sun Belt loses Arkansas State and Louisiana that down the road if Portland State, Sac State, Montana, Montana State, and whomever out west are in a position to go FBS that NMSU and Idaho can go out the garage pull the tarp off the old bike and see if she fires up and Texas State and ULM might well be inclined to go with them.

With all the Southeastern FCS with an FBS twinkle in their eye, Sun Belt isn't going to be dead and buried.

In that sense you cannot "kill" the Sun Belt.

But if you want to make sure the Sun Belt in a good year is finishing 4th in the CFP standings and isn't in a decent position to contend for the CFP at-large slot you can do that and "kill" the Sun Belt as a potential player. While you can't control who the Sun Belt adds you can make it hard for the Sun Belt to get the critical mass to have a decent regional TV deal by taking teams that can be built around.

The Sun Belt's regional TV package expires after this season. Five football and six olympic members are in the region served by Fox SW and Comcast SW. The only service territory where they have enough mass to be of interest to a regional sports network.

Taking the two most successful Sun Belt teams (on the field and in the stands) in that service territory doesn't put the Sun Belt out of business but it makes it harder for the Sun Belt to create an effective tier II deal.
04-10-2013 08:52 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
FIUFan Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,498
Joined: Aug 2009
Reputation: 96
I Root For: FIU
Location: Coral Gables, FL
Post: #71
RE: CUSA weighing 16-team model
If C-USA, The MW, The AAC and to a lesser degree the MAC, decide in the next 12 months to add schools, this will most likely signal the end of the Sun Belt as a football playing conference. All it would take is the removal of four, already qualified schools from their line-up and they would be down to 5 qualified members. App St. and Georgia Southern are a full two years away from qualification as it stands now.

Without an additional non-AQ (if we're still calling it that) conference the share to each remaining conference goes from 1/5th of a BCS pay-out to 1/4th of a pay-out or a 25% annual increase per member conference. If the annual pay-out is $80 million to the Go5, that's what? $16 million per conference. The pay-out to a Go4 would be $20 million per confernce or an extra $4 million.

This shuffling would have no effect on the nature of the current bowl structure as bowls would simply realign with the ammended conferences. Media contracts could be consolidated as there would be fewer players to negotiate with.

This may be where all this is heading when the C-USA commissioner says that he expects 16 football playing members in the near future.
04-10-2013 08:56 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
1845 Bear Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 5,161
Joined: Aug 2010
Reputation: 187
I Root For: Baylor
Location:
Post: #72
RE: CUSA weighing 16-team model
Frankly due to the smaller tv deal it's a good idea to go to 16 in the non-fb sports. Add a couple regional fits that don't play football.

- You get to pay them a lesser cut of the tv deal than a fb member

- You get to recoup costs that much quicker

- You essentially bring in a designated hitter to ramp up your RPI and leverage for more NCAA credits.

- You reduce travel costs just as much
04-10-2013 09:05 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MWC Tex Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,850
Joined: Aug 2012
Reputation: 179
I Root For: MW
Location: TX
Post: #73
RE: CUSA weighing 16-team model
(04-10-2013 08:52 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Define "kill" in this marketplace.

Did the MWC and CUSA and Sun Belt "kill" the WAC? Well they are out of the business of football for now but still exists as a Division I league quite honestly with NMSU and Idaho being football only in the Sun Belt and Texas State sitting there not quite in the WAC footprint outlier in the Sun Belt it is entirely possible that if Sun Belt loses Arkansas State and Louisiana that down the road if Portland State, Sac State, Montana, Montana State, and whomever out west are in a position to go FBS that NMSU and Idaho can go out the garage pull the tarp off the old bike and see if she fires up and Texas State and ULM might well be inclined to go with them.

With all the Southeastern FCS with an FBS twinkle in their eye, Sun Belt isn't going to be dead and buried.

In that sense you cannot "kill" the Sun Belt.

But if you want to make sure the Sun Belt in a good year is finishing 4th in the CFP standings and isn't in a decent position to contend for the CFP at-large slot you can do that and "kill" the Sun Belt as a potential player. While you can't control who the Sun Belt adds you can make it hard for the Sun Belt to get the critical mass to have a decent regional TV deal by taking teams that can be built around.

The Sun Belt's regional TV package expires after this season. Five football and six olympic members are in the region served by Fox SW and Comcast SW. The only service territory where they have enough mass to be of interest to a regional sports network.

Taking the two most successful Sun Belt teams (on the field and in the stands) in that service territory doesn't put the Sun Belt out of business but it makes it harder for the Sun Belt to create an effective tier II deal.

When talking about 'kill' it is meant in a football sense. The Sunbelt will survive as a Div 1 conference but not in football if certain things go a certain way. No school in the West will move up without a MW invite so in essence, the Big Sky schools are out of luck moving up and probably are fine with there setup as the WAC as an invite to anybody would wanted to move and not one school choose to go to the WAC (for football)
04-10-2013 09:25 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
GoAppsGo92 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,700
Joined: Feb 2011
Reputation: 56
I Root For: TheMountaineers
Location:
Post: #74
RE: CUSA weighing 16-team model
(04-10-2013 08:52 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Define "kill" in this marketplace.

Did the MWC and CUSA and Sun Belt "kill" the WAC? Well they are out of the business of football for now but still exists as a Division I league quite honestly with NMSU and Idaho being football only in the Sun Belt and Texas State sitting there not quite in the WAC footprint outlier in the Sun Belt it is entirely possible that if Sun Belt loses Arkansas State and Louisiana that down the road if Portland State, Sac State, Montana, Montana State, and whomever out west are in a position to go FBS that NMSU and Idaho can go out the garage pull the tarp off the old bike and see if she fires up and Texas State and ULM might well be inclined to go with them.

With all the Southeastern FCS with an FBS twinkle in their eye, Sun Belt isn't going to be dead and buried.

In that sense you cannot "kill" the Sun Belt.

But if you want to make sure the Sun Belt in a good year is finishing 4th in the CFP standings and isn't in a decent position to contend for the CFP at-large slot you can do that and "kill" the Sun Belt as a potential player. While you can't control who the Sun Belt adds you can make it hard for the Sun Belt to get the critical mass to have a decent regional TV deal by taking teams that can be built around.

The Sun Belt's regional TV package expires after this season. Five football and six olympic members are in the region served by Fox SW and Comcast SW. The only service territory where they have enough mass to be of interest to a regional sports network.

Taking the two most successful Sun Belt teams (on the field and in the stands) in that service territory doesn't put the Sun Belt out of business but it makes it harder for the Sun Belt to create an effective tier II deal.

So the goal is to sabotage the SunBelt? Is that what AAC did to CUSA and the Big 10 and ACC did to the Big East? To state that taking the last two kids not picked in dodge ball is going to destroy a conference is silly. Saving the best for last right? 07-coffee3
04-10-2013 09:40 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BruceMcF Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 13,098
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 760
I Root For: Reds/Buckeyes/.
Location:
Post: #75
RE: CUSA weighing 16-team model
(04-10-2013 09:40 AM)GoAppsGo92 Wrote:  So the goal is to sabotage the SunBelt?
No, if the Sunbelt is taken out of the FBS in this way, its collateral damage resulting from a shift in commercial incentives which presently favor 12 school conferences.

I don't believe that there has been any such shift across the board. The American has not signaled any interest in going above 12, unless the service academies are available, and the MAC has not given the signal of being in any particular hurry to get to 14, which would go along with a fixed plan of going to 16. And the Mountain West has not given any indication of any interest in expansion after their reload to 10 from a raid that didn't actually happen left them at 12.

Rather, Conference USA is a special case, since they are on the margin between being a single-bid and multi-bid NCAA tourney conference and have unbalanced regional distribution in their two divisions which might allow a reduction in average travel expenses from more regionally compact divisions.
04-10-2013 09:52 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
GoAppsGo92 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,700
Joined: Feb 2011
Reputation: 56
I Root For: TheMountaineers
Location:
Post: #76
RE: CUSA weighing 16-team model
(04-10-2013 09:52 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  
(04-10-2013 09:40 AM)GoAppsGo92 Wrote:  So the goal is to sabotage the SunBelt?
No, if the Sunbelt is taken out of the FBS in this way, its collateral damage resulting from a shift in commercial incentives which presently favor 12 school conferences.

I don't believe that there has been any such shift across the board. The American has not signaled any interest in going above 12, unless the service academies are available, and the MAC has not given the signal of being in any particular hurry to get to 14, which would go along with a fixed plan of going to 16. And the Mountain West has not given any indication of any interest in expansion after their reload to 10 from a raid that didn't actually happen left them at 12.

Rather, Conference USA is a special case, since they are on the margin between being a single-bid and multi-bid NCAA tourney conference and have unbalanced regional distribution in their two divisions which might allow a reduction in average travel expenses from more regionally compact divisions.

I agree with your first part of your post: There is no evidence to suggest that there is a shift in commercial incentives. And, because of that... it will prevent CUSA from making a 16 team play for geographic reasons, even if a travel cost argument could be made. Until there is a sense that more revenue would come from such an arrangement, it doesn't happen... the other schools would be agreeing to dilute revenue even further while making it harder to schedule OOC games that could generate local interest and increase ticket sales... not to mention add to their football gravitas.
(This post was last modified: 04-10-2013 10:58 AM by GoAppsGo92.)
04-10-2013 10:56 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BruceMcF Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 13,098
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 760
I Root For: Reds/Buckeyes/.
Location:
Post: #77
RE: CUSA weighing 16-team model
(04-10-2013 10:56 AM)GoAppsGo92 Wrote:  I agree with your first part of your post: There is no evidence to suggest that there is a shift in commercial incentives. And, because of that... it will prevent CUSA from making a 16 team play for geographic reasons, even if a travel cost argument could be made.
Travel costs are a substantial issue if you have multiple team sports that can benefit from a more geographic coherent divisional split. With 16 schools, I'd assume you would have division-centric scheduling in men and women's soccer, baseball and softball at the very least, in addition to football.

But there is also the question of bowl/tourney payouts. An average extra NCAA tourney appearance per year is worth an extra $1.5m annually, being third rather than fourth in the Group of Five football rankings is worth $1m, having the Group of Five rep one year in six would be worth $1m. If you are also talking to broadcast partners who say that more geographically coherent divisions would be more valuable for the games they are sublicensing to regional sports networks, its certainly worth looking at.

And indeed, none of the actual reporting goes beyond the CUSA modeling how a 16 team conference would work, which is, to be sure, "considering going to 16 teams", but it could easily the "considering whether it makes sense to go to 16 at all" stage as opposed to the "considering whether there are teams available that make the model work" stage.

The result of the modeling could well be, "nah, the extra revenues and saved costs are either not large enough or not certain enough to make it worthwhile".
04-10-2013 11:11 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 25,818
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 967
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #78
RE: CUSA weighing 16-team model
Let's assume it is true CUSA is considering going to 16.

Let's assume that CUSA makes the invitation by July 1, 2013.

The two new schools would enter July 1, 2014.

Based on past reports, entry fee would be aproximately $2 million each probably in the form of waived conference distributions in 2014-2015 and 2015-16.

2016-2017 is the final year of the CUSA TV deals... UNLESS during negotiations in 2015-16 CUSA agrees to new deals with the existing TV partners during the exclusive negotiation period in which case they go ahead and replace the final year of the contract and begin it in 2016-17 (the first year the new members take full shares).

Or, they don't like what is offered and go to the marketplace and the new deal is for 2017-?

CUSA members lose basically nothing the first two years the new members are in. The CUSA TV deal has a reported value of $1 million per member (the $1.2 was based on a 12 member CUSA). In the first two years the waived revenue of the two new members is $1 million each. In other words they get none of the stated value of the TV deal (or they lump sum a cash payment in to replace what is lost).

Not until 2016-17 is there a "more mouths to feed" argument and we don't know if the current TV deal is in effect or not because CUSA hasn't started the exclusive negotiation window with Fox and CBS. That final year it costs the rest of CUSA $125,000 to have gone to 16 so the two new members have to generate $2 million in league revenue to offset that.

Where CUSA finishes in the CFP with and without them might be enough to cover the offset even if they hold $0 in TV value.

What is scary is what happens if the shifts in the TV marketplace results in an offer that is less than $16 million per year? If that happens everyone is losing money compared to where they were.

If that happens you have the Big XII panic all over, you have Mountain Goat panic all over and CUSA splits apart. But adding or not adding that same scenario looms in 2016 whether or not CUSA adds members.

AAC faces the same in 2020.
04-10-2013 11:58 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wedge Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 19,862
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 964
I Root For: California
Location: IV, V, VI, IX
Post: #79
RE: CUSA weighing 16-team model
(04-10-2013 06:26 AM)GoAppsGo92 Wrote:  
(04-10-2013 12:10 AM)Wedge Wrote:  
(04-09-2013 09:28 PM)GoAppsGo92 Wrote:  IF, and I mean IF CUSA goes to 16 it will be to insulate them from future losses due to movements at the top. If they are interested in stAte and ULL, they are not going anywhere. There is no rush. As much fun as talking about all this is, I think we are at the end of this round. I'll say this: IF CUSA expands beyond 14, it is a sheer desperation move on their part. CUSA won't kill the SBC and they know it,

I think the first bolded passage is correct, but the second one isn't. CUSA can diminish the SBC by attrition a couple of schools at a time if they really want to (though that doesn't appear to be their plan). Ark State and La-Lafayette are good examples -- losing them would diminish the SBC because the league would be replacing two of the SBC's bowl teams in 2011/2012 with more FCS move-ups. That's a bigger hit to SBC football than replacing the F_U's.

Again, if that was their plan, they would have done it already. There is, and hasn't been, anything to stop them and taking stAte and ULL would have made more sense before 3 of the 4 most recent invites. My opinion is that CUSA membership has not even decided if 16 teams is in their best interest, and we've all decided what teams they are going to pick. I think the membership is clearly divided on this issue and what it means for revenue distribution and scheduling.

That might be right. Further expansion is clearly in the conference commissioner's best interests, because adding more schools is additional insurance for his own job security in case there's more movement farther up the food chain that results in CUSA losing 2-6 more schools. But even with the hard sell from the commissioner, that doesn't necessarily mean it's in the best interests of the schools that are in CUSA right now. School presidents and ADs need to pay attention.

(And you could say something similar for any of a number of conferences. Commissioners might be trying to talk their member school presidents into moves that might not be in the current member schools' best interests.)
(This post was last modified: 04-10-2013 12:07 PM by Wedge.)
04-10-2013 12:07 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 66,287
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 3285
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #80
RE: CUSA weighing 16-team model
(04-10-2013 12:07 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(04-10-2013 06:26 AM)GoAppsGo92 Wrote:  
(04-10-2013 12:10 AM)Wedge Wrote:  
(04-09-2013 09:28 PM)GoAppsGo92 Wrote:  IF, and I mean IF CUSA goes to 16 it will be to insulate them from future losses due to movements at the top. If they are interested in stAte and ULL, they are not going anywhere. There is no rush. As much fun as talking about all this is, I think we are at the end of this round. I'll say this: IF CUSA expands beyond 14, it is a sheer desperation move on their part. CUSA won't kill the SBC and they know it,

I think the first bolded passage is correct, but the second one isn't. CUSA can diminish the SBC by attrition a couple of schools at a time if they really want to (though that doesn't appear to be their plan). Ark State and La-Lafayette are good examples -- losing them would diminish the SBC because the league would be replacing two of the SBC's bowl teams in 2011/2012 with more FCS move-ups. That's a bigger hit to SBC football than replacing the F_U's.

Again, if that was their plan, they would have done it already. There is, and hasn't been, anything to stop them and taking stAte and ULL would have made more sense before 3 of the 4 most recent invites. My opinion is that CUSA membership has not even decided if 16 teams is in their best interest, and we've all decided what teams they are going to pick. I think the membership is clearly divided on this issue and what it means for revenue distribution and scheduling.

Makes sense. If they were interested in finishing off the Sun Belt, they would have taken WKU and one of Arkansas St./ULL before Tulsa formally left. That would have left the Sun Belt with 6 going on 5 with Georgia State new to FBS and South Alabama and Texas St. only having 1 year under their belt. Those 3, Troy and La-Mo would probably be talking to the MAC. But they didn't move until the Sun Belt added 4 more schools.
04-10-2013 12:17 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.