http://hamptonroads.com/2013/04/odu-eyes...usa-invite

Quote:...C-USA paid about $1.17 million in television revenue last year to each school, compared to $40,000 for the Sun Belt, Western Kentucky officials said when they recently announced they were jumping leagues....

Wow.

This is going to hurt even worse than I had suggested. That's not just 1/16th, that's practically 1/30th of the income.

Marshall, UAB, USM, Rice and UTEP, enjoy that AAC subsidy while you can.

if you're just going to be a negative nancy, go back to herdfans...

Don't make this about me.

Our situation has become substantially worse... even worse than even I had originally thought... and we can either pretend it doesn't exist and revel in our lesser position, or we can let it drive us to not be content and to expect better.

(04-27-2013 01:08 AM)_sturt_ Wrote:  Don't make this about me.

Our situation has become substantially worse... even worse than even I had originally thought... and we can either pretend it doesn't exist and revel in our lesser position, or we can let it drive us to not be content and to expect better.

In percentages the aac and C-USA dollars are noticeable but in real dollar amounts to the teams, not so much....and 100% of that is attributable to cinci plus cinci and uconn basketball. C-USA didn't fall too terribly far backwards - they just moved up; but primarily in basketball. Despite chest thumping idiocy of many aac fans I would expect C-USA television to go up next go around.

A whole lot of a conference contract is about the combination of two things --- inventory needs of the networks and pecking order of conferences. C-USA hasn't fallen in the pecking order at all and the programming needs are bigger now than when we signed our last television contract. The more inventory that's needed the more, and higher, the scraps are that fall from the cartel conference plates. Market size is important - but not to the extent of quality of play. Those awarding contracts know how to work math problems - and 3% of a huge market is still better than 70% of a tiny market (it's merely an exaggerated example for those looking to play on words).

Both the aac and C-USA put too much emphasis on market and not enough on quality of play -- aac COULD have been the #4 conference in my opinion but they went about it way too wrong. Even with the aac bombing C-USA, had BB gone about it more methodically we would have been sitting at 12 with 4 of the 14 not in C-USA and 2 who are not in would have been invited....possibly even 5 and 3.

No matter what the Sunbelt is getting, it doesn't mean that CUSA will get that with new deal. Is CUSA likely to get a haircut?? probably yes, but doubt it is going to be even close to Belt levels. My guess is CUSA if it does well over the next couple/few years till its deal comes up, it may well freeze it where it is, get a very small increase, or take a 10 to 30% drop. It will not drop off the face of the earth to Sun levels.

(04-27-2013 07:22 AM)WinOrLoseEAGLE Wrote:  In percentages the aac and C-USA dollars are noticeable but in real dollar amounts to the teams, not so much....and 100% of that is attributable to cinci plus cinci and uconn basketball. C-USA didn't fall too terribly far backwards - they just moved up; but primarily in basketball. Despite chest thumping idiocy of many aac fans I would expect C-USA television to go up next go around.

I don't know where you get any of that. Any. Sorry.

If the AAC contract looks very much like CUSA 2.0 contract... and if CUSA 2.0 and AAC are made up mostly of the same lead schools... there is definitive foundation for concluding that the value that the networks placed on those schools when CUSA 2.0 was negotiated is approximately the same value they place on them even after adding the 4 Big East leftovers.

(04-27-2013 07:22 AM)WinOrLoseEAGLE Wrote:  A whole lot of a conference contract is about the combination of two things --- inventory needs of the networks and pecking order of conferences. C-USA hasn't fallen in the pecking order at all and the programming needs are bigger now than when we signed our last television contract. The more inventory that's needed the more, and higher, the scraps are that fall from the cartel conference plates. Market size is important - but not to the extent of quality of play. Those awarding contracts know how to work math problems - and 3% of a huge market is still better than 70% of a tiny market (it's merely an exaggerated example for those looking to play on words).

Yeah. That was the Big East theory. Inventory need was going to drive up the asking price big-time.

You evidently didn't notice but your theory fell with a loud thud when AAC schools ended up with virtually the same money as CUSA 2.0 schools had attained in their previous negotiation. This presumed gargantuan NBC/Comcast vs. ESPN competition that Boise et al thought would inflate prices proved to be hyperbole... and so Boise went back home.

Rather, the lesson of the AAC contract is that conferences command dollars based primarily on the collection of school brands that they've assembled.

The evidence supports that networks do not pull numbers out of the air depending on how desperate they are to fill inventory, how much success has been experienced over a few years by schools or how optimistic the schools and their fans are.

Instead, they're in the business of making money. And so, they study the historical TV audience ratings of schools, study the amount of dollars historically charged to legitimate advertisers (as opposed to commission-based ads for ear wax removal vacuums and such), and having some idea of what they can charge advertisers, then make an offer to the conference that allows the network to achieve some profit.

AAC has recognizable brand names that CUSA 3.0 doesn't.

Can that change?

To some degree, but again, history shows that's a glacier-like proposition... there's nothing apparent that's going to take what was a 1 to 30 ratio in 2012 to anything respectable by the next negotiation.

Accordingly... can't help but note that the "chest-thumping idiocy" charge is, itself, bluster, and moreover, somewhat hypocritical.

(04-27-2013 07:44 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  No matter what the Sunbelt is getting, it doesn't mean that CUSA will get that with new deal. Is CUSA likely to get a haircut?? probably yes, but doubt it is going to be even close to Belt levels. My guess is CUSA if it does well over the next couple/few years till its deal comes up, it may well freeze it where it is, get a very small increase, or take a 10 to 30% drop. It will not drop off the face of the earth to Sun levels.

It's all good and fine to be Pollyannas about this. We're fans. We can speculate, and no one gains or loses either way.

But if you want to think soberly and honestly about it, with no particular bias toward optimism, a big part of the challenge to that is that people so rarely think about these situations from the perspective of if THEY were in business, and THEY were trying to turn a profit by selling advertising for sports events... or if THEY were in the position of an advertiser, considering how to structure their media buying, and looking at what is a pragmatic price to pay... and how one would even figure what that price would be, short of looking at historical audience draws.

And what does bitching and complaining accomplish?? It doesn't make networks give you more money. It doesn't make higher conferences invite you. So what's the point? Be glad you aren't in sunbelt 2.0 (the actual bottom feeder of conferences who might have to PAY to be on TV after their next negotiations) and move on.

You're right that it most certainly doesn't make the networks give more money.

I would take issue with calling it "bitching and complaining," but okay, we'll use your words. What does it accomplish?

Well, since you brought it up, first let's note that it also doesn't make the networks give less money. They don't give a flip, nor should they.

I suppose it does accomplish the same thing that it accomplishes when we highlight other negatives... like, say, the national debt for instance... it doesn't make it bigger or smaller to talk about it, but to ignore it is to allow ourselves to be delusional, and to not really understand a situation for what it actually is... and most of us would agree, it's better to understand and represent something forthrightly though it is a negative than to misunderstand and misrepresent something for the sake of being positive.

(04-27-2013 09:17 AM)_sturt_ Wrote:  

(04-27-2013 07:44 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  No matter what the Sunbelt is getting, it doesn't mean that CUSA will get that with new deal. Is CUSA likely to get a haircut?? probably yes, but doubt it is going to be even close to Belt levels. My guess is CUSA if it does well over the next couple/few years till its deal comes up, it may well freeze it where it is, get a very small increase, or take a 10 to 30% drop. It will not drop off the face of the earth to Sun levels.

It's all good and fine to be Pollyannas about this. We're fans. We can speculate, and no one gains or loses either way.

But if you want to think soberly and honestly about it, with no particular bias toward optimism, a big part of the challenge to that is that people so rarely think about these situations from the perspective of if THEY were in business, and THEY were trying to turn a profit by selling advertising for sports events... or if THEY were in the position of an advertiser, considering how to structure their media buying, and looking at what is a pragmatic price to pay... and how one would even figure what that price would be, short of looking at historical audience draws.

So, all this is just a bunch of rhetoric over and over and you're assuming a worst case scenario with your 1/16, 1/30 numbers.

Just to put a number on it, in today's dollars, what are you saying that CUSA's TV contract will be?

(04-27-2013 07:44 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  No matter what the Sunbelt is getting, it doesn't mean that CUSA will get that with new deal. Is CUSA likely to get a haircut?? probably yes, but doubt it is going to be even close to Belt levels. My guess is CUSA if it does well over the next couple/few years till its deal comes up, it may well freeze it where it is, get a very small increase, or take a 10 to 30% drop. It will not drop off the face of the earth to Sun levels.

Exactly...

(04-27-2013 11:18 AM)oldtiger Wrote:  So, all this is just a bunch of rhetoric over and over and you're assuming a worst case scenario with your 1/16, 1/30 numbers.

Just to put a number on it, in today's dollars, what are you saying that CUSA's TV contract will be?

Hold up.

Who even said "worst case scenario?" Might be worst... might be best. Who can know. All we can do is make educated, instead of uneducated, guesses. All we know is what has happened, not what will happen.

But we are usually smart enough when our OWN money is involved to look at history... that's why, just for instance, you probably prefer Morningstar 5-star rated funds for your retirement over that of 1-stars.

So, in 2010, according to al.com, the ratio was 1 to 16.

In 2012, according to Western Kentucky via the Virginian-Pilot, the ratio was 1 to 30.

All I'm laying out there is that this is what it has been. And unfortunately, it's not the kind of news we want to hear.

Unless/until someone can cite out some facts and rationale that a network executive or his clients could buy-in to (i.e., the people spending the money, as opposed to what WE think our product is worth) that indicates some good reason to think there would be substantive change, the conventional wisdom is that the aggregate value of CUSA 3.0 schools' brands will more resemble Sun Belt money than AAC money.

(04-27-2013 11:58 AM)_sturt_ Wrote:  

(04-27-2013 11:18 AM)oldtiger Wrote:  So, all this is just a bunch of rhetoric over and over and you're assuming a worst case scenario with your 1/16, 1/30 numbers.

Just to put a number on it, in today's dollars, what are you saying that CUSA's TV contract will be?

Hold up.

Who even said "worst case scenario?" Might be worst... might be best. Who can know. All we can do is make educated, instead of uneducated, guesses. All we know is what has happened, not what will happen.

But we are usually smart enough when our OWN money is involved to look at history... that's why, just for instance, you probably prefer Morningstar 5-star rated funds for your retirement over that of 1-stars.

So, in 2010, according to al.com, the ratio was 1 to 16.

In 2012, according to Western Kentucky via the Virginian-Pilot, the ratio was 1 to 30.

All I'm laying out there is that this is what it has been. And unfortunately, it's not the kind of news we want to hear.

Unless/until someone can cite out some facts and rationale that a network executive or his clients could buy-in to (i.e., the people spending the money, as opposed to what WE think our product is worth) that indicates some good reason to think there would be substantive change, the conventional wisdom is that the aggregate value of CUSA 3.0 schools' brands will more resemble Sun Belt money than AAC money.

So, after all of this negative rhetoric, you don't want to actually commit to a real number in today's dollars.

(04-27-2013 12:06 PM)oldtiger Wrote:  So, after all of this negative rhetoric, you don't want to actually commit to a real number in today's dollars.

Pinning down an exact number is not really the point unless you're a bookie.

If negotiated today, though, the number would be closer to $40,000 per school than it would be to $1,170,000 per school.

And if I may be candid... I see, after all of this discussion, you don't want to actually offer any information or rationale that would dispute that.

Can't say I blame you on that. It is what it is.

Gotta love when somebody with no experience with this keeps spouting this kind of non-sense. It's not as simple as - CUSA added Sunbelt teams therefore CUSA TV deal will equal Sunbelt.

Hell, the old Big East TV deal was only $3,000,000 per football member. People seem to forget how low it really was. Even with only 3 old members left and NONE of the C7 it only dropped $1,000,000.

OP = moron.

(04-27-2013 12:13 PM)_sturt_ Wrote:  

(04-27-2013 12:06 PM)oldtiger Wrote:  So, after all of this negative rhetoric, you don't want to actually commit to a real number in today's dollars.

Pinning down an exact number is not really the point unless you're a bookie.

If negotiated today, though, the number would be closer to $40,000 per school than it would be to $1,170,000 per school.

And if I may be candid... I see, after all of this discussion, you don't want to actually offer any information or rationale that would dispute that.

Can't say I blame you on that. It is what it is.

I am willing to put my money (figurative) where my mouth is.

Signature bet that the money isn't closer to Sunbelt $ than the current CUSA contract? How strong to you really believe what you're saying?

You keep saying what happened to the AAC is exactly what will happen to CUSA. The AAC gets a CUSA contract and therefore CUSA will get a Sunbelt contract. However, the situations aren't even close. Over 40% of CUSA hasn't changed. The AAC has no relationship to what the BE was, none. It's a whole new conference.

CUSA tv deal is not likely to be as good because the programs in CUSA don't have same nane brand.

But CUSA does have the markets which should mitigate the short-term damage and keep CUSA with an advantage in this area over SBC.

What matters is whether the CUSA schools can individually establish those name brands going forward.

Ultimately the money does not mean THAT much since a million bucks is nice but not a critical percentage of budgets. Nothing to panic over.

What really matters at the CUSA/SBC level is how much you are on tv rather than whether you get a few more bucks for bragging rights.

A dozen roses by any other name is still a dozen roses. Doesn't matter if you call the package "AAC" or "CUSA" or whatever.

CUSA 3.0 will consist of the least-marketable CUSA 2.0 teams, the largest market SB teams, and some FBS newbies that have no national brand yet. If the most-marketable CUSA 2.0 teams are gone... ie, the schools whose value most substantially supported the value of the last CUSA contract and in fact the same schools whose value makes up a substantial portion in the new AAC contract... it's just not rational to expect the next CUSA 3.0 contract will look much like the CUSA 2.0 or AAC contracts.

Still waiting for an actual, linear argument that would somehow support the suggestion that the next contract will be closer to $40K in 2013 dollars than it will be to $1.17M.

(04-27-2013 12:29 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  But CUSA does have the markets which should mitigate the short-term damage and keep CUSA with an advantage in this area over SBC.

So, if those markets didn't make a difference for SB's contract, why do they make a difference for CUSA 3.0's contract?

That dog don't hunt.

Second part of the sentence is accurate, though... CUSA 3.0 picked off the best markets that SB had, so there will remain some advantage over SB.

Logic doesn't allow me to believe that CUSA's TV contract will decrease significantly considering that the new CUSA TV market increased by 43% (from 10.1 million to 14.5 million).

http://csnbbs.com/showthread.php?tid=615273