(12-06-2014 05:16 PM)Savacool Wrote:  Seems that the majority of CUSA members are former Sunbelt members making CUSA now the Sunbelt 2. Same as most AAC members are former CUSA members and now CUSA 2. Just my take on it. The key point in time is when CUSA has to renew its TV contracts!

I wonder which team(s) the networks would like to see CUSA add?

(12-05-2014 07:39 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  Its because if they aren't blocked they should be. CUSA already has 4 Texas schools in it and they all play bad football.

Wrong again. One of the four is bowl eligible for the third straight year, and won C-USA in 2013. The three year moving average of year end strength is trending upwards, and we should be right back in the C-USA champion hunt in 2015.

I think it will be Texas State.

1. It takes SBC football out of the state of Texas.

2. Already solid rivalry between Texas State and UTSA

3. Will boost UTEP and UNT home attendance games.

4. Keeps CUSA above SBC in pecking order.


CUSA East

Charlotte
Florida Atlantic
Florida International
Marshall
Middle Tennessee
Old Dominion
Western Kentucky

CUSA West

Louisiana Tech
North Texas
Rice
Southern Mississippi
Texas El Paso
Texas San Antonio
Texas State

This puts a lot of pressure on the Sun Belt

Appalachian State
Arkansas State
Georgia State
Georgia Southern
Idaho
Louisiana Lafayette
Louisiana Monroe
New Mexico State
South Alabama
Troy


So expect an invite for Missouri State and some type of announcement for UTA football.

SBC East

Appalachian State
Georgia State
Georgia Southern
Idaho
South Alabama
Troy

SBC West

Arkansas State
Missouri State
Louisiana Lafayette
Louisiana Monroe
New Mexico State
Texas Arlington

With this arrangement I would expect that Kennesaw State will be looked at as a viable replacement for Idaho in the East.


SBC East

Appalachian State
Georgia State
Georgia Southern
Kennesaw State
South Alabama
Troy

SBC West

Arkansas State
Missouri State
Louisiana Lafayette
Louisiana Monroe
New Mexico State
Texas Arlington

This makes a tight footprint in the East and a very viable West division.

It also prepares the SBC for when Georgia State is invited to fill the whole in the CUSA footprint... Georgia?

I now declare these Silly Season Games officially OPEN.


Kennesaw State....lmao

(12-06-2014 06:26 PM)FloridaJag Wrote:  I think it will be Texas State.

1. It takes SBC football out of the state of Texas.

2. Already solid rivalry between Texas State and UTSA

3. Will boost UTEP and UNT home attendance games.

4. Keeps CUSA above SBC in pecking order.


CUSA East

Charlotte
Florida Atlantic
Florida International
Marshall
Middle Tennessee
Old Dominion
Western Kentucky

CUSA West

Louisiana Tech
North Texas
Rice
Southern Mississippi
Texas El Paso
Texas San Antonio
Texas State

This puts a lot of pressure on the Sun Belt

Appalachian State
Arkansas State
Georgia State
Georgia Southern
Idaho
Louisiana Lafayette
Louisiana Monroe
New Mexico State
South Alabama
Troy


So expect an invite for Missouri State and some type of announcement for UTA football.

SBC East

Appalachian State
Georgia State
Georgia Southern
Idaho
South Alabama
Troy

SBC West

Arkansas State
Missouri State
Louisiana Lafayette
Louisiana Monroe
New Mexico State
Texas Arlington

With this arrangement I would expect that Kennesaw State will be looked at as a viable replacement for Idaho in the East.


SBC East

Appalachian State
Georgia State
Georgia Southern
Kennesaw State
South Alabama
Troy

SBC West

Arkansas State
Missouri State
Louisiana Lafayette
Louisiana Monroe
New Mexico State
Texas Arlington

This makes a tight footprint in the East and a very viable West division.

It also prepares the SBC for when Georgia State is invited to fill the whole in the CUSA footprint... Georgia?

If that were to happen look for Louisiana to negotiate an exclusive deal with the New Orleans Bowl for a tie in and the Canuns go independent. With an exclusive CST deal seemingly locked up putting the Cajuns in the households of 17 states across the Southeast we would likely go that route.

Even if we have to place our other sports in the south land.

(12-06-2014 06:36 PM)panama Wrote:  I now declare these Silly Season Games officially OPEN.


Kennesaw State....lmao

You don't see Kennesaw State as a replacement if Ga State goes to CUSA?

(12-06-2014 08:25 AM)JMUDukeDawg Wrote:  Three or so pages ago you said UMass was in a "good media market" but then use JMU's market against them. UMass's media market is 114 and has dropped five spots the last three years...

UMass has the misfortune of being 10 miles behind an imaginary line separating Boston from just about the smallest dot left on the Nielsen map, Springfield MA. The TV guys must be sentimental about Springfield, which is home to the oldest color TV station and oldest UHF station in the nation. Nevertheless, 80% of UMass students come from in-state, and the vast majority come from the Boston DMA and return there after graduation. It's the public flagship of the state. Being 10 miles behind a line drawn to match arbitrary county boundaries created in the pre-electricity era doesn't change that.

I do think the media market talk is losing relevance though, especially for the G5. Like I don't think it mattered in the slightest what markets the MAC had when they negotiated their new TV contract. They're paid for when they play, not where they play. Nor does there appear to be a dramatic difference in TV revenue in the G5 top to bottom, relatively speaking, no matter what markets are present.

To put these numbers in context: CUSA reportedly makes $7 million per year on its TV contract(s). Let's say they get a call from Yukon College: University of the Arctic (real place, fyi) asking for a conference invite, and Banowsky immediately accepts because he misheard 'Yukon' as 'UConn'. Yukon obviously brings $0 to the TV contract. But when you divvy $7 million up by 15 members instead of 14 members, you're only losing $33k per member. That's around 0.1% of the overall athletic budget for a typical CUSA member. It's almost meaningless.

That's why I'm starting to see why Banowsky wants to expand to 16 when everyone else is saying more than 12 is a waste. The stakes are so low that dividing up the pie into smaller slices would barely be noticed. What we're looking for at this level isn't really profit, it's relevance. You really only need one team to emerge as the next 2006 or 2009 Boise State to create relevance for the entire conference, and 16 teams gives you more chances of someone having a breakthrough season than 12 teams. You're also looking for exposure. Is it worth $30k for Rice to run what's essentially a 3 hour commercial in Massachusetts by playing UMass in a football game? I think so. They're not going to get that value from buying a 30 second spot between the GEICO and Doritos commercials.

And advertising the university is really the point, because profiting is out of the question. With $35 million in total athletic department expenses, Rice would have to sell out every home football game at around $100 per ticket to get close enough for basketball and baseball revenue to possibly fill in the rest. I'm pretty sure that's not happening there, nor most anywhere else in the G5. But that's okay, because this is advertising, not the actual business. The university is the business. The football team is the eye-catching commercial. And if there are prestigious universities out there that CUSA members want to be associated with in regions that they aren't currently getting their "commercials" aired, maybe that's worth sharing a negligible amount of TV revenue pie.

CUSA should position itself for the next playoff contract: splitting in two with a SWC-like and a CAA-like leagues. That should result in drastically lower travel expenses and higher CFB and NCAA revenue. Have at least seven teams that have been together seven years that can split off to form a conference. The eastern half should be looking at JMU, Delaware, STONY Brook, UMass, Ga St, and Albany. The western half should consider Mo St, Ark St, La La, Tx St.

CUSA used to be the American, but now the schools should be much more limited in their conference travels. UTEP and ODU have no business playing each other in the same conference. The reason for CUSA existing in three time zones has passed.

(12-06-2014 08:24 PM)NoDak Wrote:  CUSA should position itself for the next playoff contract: splitting in two with a SWC-like and a CAA-like leagues. That should result in drastically lower travel expenses and higher CFB and NCAA revenue. Have at least seven teams that have been together seven years that can split off to form a conference. The eastern half should be looking at JMU, Delaware, STONY Brook, UMass, Ga St, and Albany. The western half should consider Mo St, Ark St, La La, Tx St.

CUSA used to be the American, but now the schools should be much more limited in their conference travels. UTEP and ODU have no business playing each other in the same conference. The reason for CUSA existing in three time zones has passed.

You really live a long way from the east coast. Talking about Albany and Stony Brook is like the Sun Belt talking about E. Ky and Missouri State. One needs a lot of time and the other is moving but needs time. Delaware is one of the few FCS teams to every make money and have no desire to move up. Then you give us Ga St as the only FBS team. JMU is a bit fussy and monitoring the situation.

NoDak, you just a mean son of a ... to UMass.

(12-06-2014 07:51 PM)FloridaJag Wrote:  

(12-06-2014 06:36 PM)panama Wrote:  I now declare these Silly Season Games officially OPEN.

Kennesaw State....lmao

You don't see Kennesaw State as a replacement if Ga State goes to CUSA?

Thing is, one certainly available option is "don't add anybody", which gives a ten school round robin, play all but one school every year. The Sunbelt could even set up quasi- East and West divisions by having the skipped game for each of the five Eastern schools rotate through the five Western schools and visa versa. There is, in effect, not loss to the FB strength. There is a loss to BBall RPI, but adding Kennesaw State would not fix that issue.

And a second likely available option is add NMSU all-sports and UAB Olympic-sports and play a ten school FB schedule and a twelve school BBall schedule. And there is no loss to the FB strength and an upgrade to BBall.

And a third likely available option is add NMSU all-sports, UAB Olympic Sports and UMass FB-only, with the $1m UMass CFP money distributed between $75K traveling subsidies and a $400K conference affiliation fee. Its the $12m cap on the $1m/school from the CFP that makes the Sunbelt and the CUSA financial situation with respect to UMass different.

I don't know that any of those are the best available option, but all of them are better than "replace a raided GA State with Kennesaw State".

(12-06-2014 07:51 PM)FloridaJag Wrote:  

(12-06-2014 06:36 PM)panama Wrote:  I now declare these Silly Season Games officially OPEN.


Kennesaw State....lmao

You don't see Kennesaw State as a replacement if Ga State goes to CUSA?

They havent played a game
They had to change their startup date 3 times due to money
They play in an 8300 seat soccer stadium and have no money to expand it.
There will be no more student athletics fees increases in GA again in our lifetime
Georgia Southern would form a terrorist group to prevent it.

No I dont see that. And I dont see how you see that in the next 15 years or what you base it upon.

(12-06-2014 09:39 PM)Steve1981 Wrote:  

(12-06-2014 08:24 PM)NoDak Wrote:  CUSA should position itself for the next playoff contract: splitting in two with a SWC-like and a CAA-like leagues. That should result in drastically lower travel expenses and higher CFB and NCAA revenue. Have at least seven teams that have been together seven years that can split off to form a conference. The eastern half should be looking at JMU, Delaware, STONY Brook, UMass, Ga St, and Albany. The western half should consider Mo St, Ark St, La La, Tx St.

CUSA used to be the American, but now the schools should be much more limited in their conference travels. UTEP and ODU have no business playing each other in the same conference. The reason for CUSA existing in three time zones has passed.

You really live a long way from the east coast. Talking about Albany and Stony Brook is like the Sun Belt talking about E. Ky and Missouri State. One needs a lot of time and the other is moving but needs time. Delaware is one of the few FCS teams to every make money and have no desire to move up. Then you give us Ga St as the only FBS team. JMU is a bit fussy and monitoring the situation.

NoDak, you just a mean son of a ... to UMass.

Delaware's President was against FBS before but he has changed his tune.

There's been a lot of talk on this board about UMass going FB only into the Sun Belt. Affiliating with the schools I listed would be a massive step up academically and UMass fans actually have some familiarity with them. JMU doesn't want the Sun Belt, much like UMass, Delaware, Stony Brook, etc.

(12-06-2014 06:21 PM)ESE84 Wrote:  

(12-05-2014 07:39 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  Its because if they aren't blocked they should be. CUSA already has 4 Texas schools in it and they all play bad football.

Wrong again. One of the four is bowl eligible for the third straight year, and won C-USA in 2013. The three year moving average of year end strength is trending upwards, and we should be right back in the C-USA champion hunt in 2015.

Outside of Boise State and Northern Illinois, G5 schools play bad football.

Others have an occasional good year like Marshall and Colorado State did. Georgia Southern has potential to play good football but that is determined over an extended period of performance.

(12-06-2014 08:06 PM)LastMinuteman Wrote:  

(12-06-2014 08:25 AM)JMUDukeDawg Wrote:  Three or so pages ago you said UMass was in a "good media market" but then use JMU's market against them. UMass's media market is 114 and has dropped five spots the last three years...

UMass has the misfortune of being 10 miles behind an imaginary line separating Boston from just about the smallest dot left on the Nielsen map, Springfield MA. The TV guys must be sentimental about Springfield, which is home to the oldest color TV station and oldest UHF station in the nation. Nevertheless, 80% of UMass students come from in-state, and the vast majority come from the Boston DMA and return there after graduation. It's the public flagship of the state. Being 10 miles behind a line drawn to match arbitrary county boundaries created in the pre-electricity era doesn't change that.

I do think the media market talk is losing relevance though, especially for the G5. Like I don't think it mattered in the slightest what markets the MAC had when they negotiated their new TV contract. They're paid for when they play, not where they play. Nor does there appear to be a dramatic difference in TV revenue in the G5 top to bottom, relatively speaking, no matter what markets are present.

To put these numbers in context: CUSA reportedly makes $7 million per year on its TV contract(s). Let's say they get a call from Yukon College: University of the Arctic (real place, fyi) asking for a conference invite, and Banowsky immediately accepts because he misheard 'Yukon' as 'UConn'. Yukon obviously brings $0 to the TV contract. But when you divvy $7 million up by 15 members instead of 14 members, you're only losing $33k per member. That's around 0.1% of the overall athletic budget for a typical CUSA member. It's almost meaningless.

That's why I'm starting to see why Banowsky wants to expand to 16 when everyone else is saying more than 12 is a waste. The stakes are so low that dividing up the pie into smaller slices would barely be noticed. What we're looking for at this level isn't really profit, it's relevance. You really only need one team to emerge as the next 2006 or 2009 Boise State to create relevance for the entire conference, and 16 teams gives you more chances of someone having a breakthrough season than 12 teams. You're also looking for exposure. Is it worth $30k for Rice to run what's essentially a 3 hour commercial in Massachusetts by playing UMass in a football game? I think so. They're not going to get that value from buying a 30 second spot between the GEICO and Doritos commercials.

And advertising the university is really the point, because profiting is out of the question. With $35 million in total athletic department expenses, Rice would have to sell out every home football game at around $100 per ticket to get close enough for basketball and baseball revenue to possibly fill in the rest. I'm pretty sure that's not happening there, nor most anywhere else in the G5. But that's okay, because this is advertising, not the actual business. The university is the business. The football team is the eye-catching commercial. And if there are prestigious universities out there that CUSA members want to be associated with in regions that they aren't currently getting their "commercials" aired, maybe that's worth sharing a negligible amount of TV revenue pie.

Great post. Best one all week.

CUSA needs to become more relevant nationally. They offered to merge with the Mountain West before to create an Eastern/Western league set up. If they go with NMSU, Louisiana and UMass they pretty much have a two conference under one banner setup.

(12-06-2014 08:06 PM)LastMinuteman Wrote:  I do think the media market talk is losing relevance though, especially for the G5. Like I don't think it mattered in the slightest what markets the MAC had when they negotiated their new TV contract. They're paid for when they play, not where they play. Nor does there appear to be a dramatic difference in TV revenue in the G5 top to bottom, relatively speaking, no matter what markets are present.

The MAC is paid in FB for when they play ... some slice of the MAC fee increase is for the ESPN3 streaming production facilities in all MAC arenas and all MAC home games on ESPN3 (if not picked up for narrowcast on ESPNU/ESPN2). And that is basically paying for whatever slice of the MAC alumni base is interested in catching their alma mater's BBall on streaming, plus the upside of local interest if a school has a hot season.

Rather than markets "losing relevance", I would say that media market discussion in fan discussions of realignment have tended to focused on the number that is easiest to measure ~ broadcast television local media market size ~ rather than the number that is most relevant, which is the audience in media markets delivered by a school. The American "has" some massive media markets, as in has a presence in them, but if its only 1% of the sports audience in a major metro center that is paying attention, then most of that is untapped potential. Which was why the Old Big East was chasing Boise State in its "Big East of Reno" strategy, in an effort to get more of those people in those markets to actually tune in to the restructured conference's games.

Also, with a fixed number of conference wins to be distributed around the conference, there is still a part of the conference media value which comes from the rivalries with other schools, which for some contests will be the main thing lending any significance to the game. In a streaming game environment where almost nobody is watching because "its the game that's on", that is an important part of a conference brand equity.

(12-06-2014 11:35 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(12-06-2014 06:21 PM)ESE84 Wrote:  

(12-05-2014 07:39 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  Its because if they aren't blocked they should be. CUSA already has 4 Texas schools in it and they all play bad football.

Wrong again. One of the four is bowl eligible for the third straight year, and won C-USA in 2013. The three year moving average of year end strength is trending upwards, and we should be right back in the C-USA champion hunt in 2015.

Outside of Boise State and Northern Illinois, G5 schools play bad football.

Others have an occasional good year like Marshall and Colorado State did. Georgia Southern has potential to play good football but that is determined over an extended period of performance.

.....

(12-07-2014 12:28 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(12-06-2014 08:06 PM)LastMinuteman Wrote:  I do think the media market talk is losing relevance though, especially for the G5. Like I don't think it mattered in the slightest what markets the MAC had when they negotiated their new TV contract. They're paid for when they play, not where they play. Nor does there appear to be a dramatic difference in TV revenue in the G5 top to bottom, relatively speaking, no matter what markets are present.

The MAC is paid in FB for when they play ... some slice of the MAC fee increase is for the ESPN3 streaming production facilities in all MAC arenas and all MAC home games on ESPN3 (if not picked up for narrowcast on ESPNU/ESPN2). And that is basically paying for whatever slice of the MAC alumni base is interested in catching their alma mater's BBall on streaming, plus the upside of local interest if a school has a hot season.

Rather than markets "losing relevance", I would say that media market discussion in fan discussions of realignment have tended to focused on the number that is easiest to measure ~ broadcast television local media market size ~ rather than the number that is most relevant, which is the audience in media markets delivered by a school. The American "has" some massive media markets, as in has a presence in them, but if its only 1% of the sports audience in a major metro center that is paying attention, then most of that is untapped potential. Which was why the Old Big East was chasing Boise State in its "Big East of Reno" strategy, in an effort to get more of those people in those markets to actually tune in to the restructured conference's games.

Also, with a fixed number of conference wins to be distributed around the conference, there is still a part of the conference media value which comes from the rivalries with other schools, which for some contests will be the main thing lending any significance to the game. In a streaming game environment where almost nobody is watching because "its the game that's on", that is an important part of a conference brand equity.

There is a method to the madness in markets. I think we all agree that wins and loses in a conference is a zero sum game. For every in-conference game, there is a winner and a loser. There will be a team that loses almost all its games every year and one that wins almost all their games every year.

I think we can also agree that most G5 teams in large markets do not control those markets---but they generally do quite well in those markets when they are winning. In fact, most all G5 teams do better in attendance and ratings when they win.

So--here is the method to the market madness. If you have a 12 team conference made up of all large market teams---then 50% of the teams will win, and 50% will lose. If those winning teams are in markets of 3 million---then the 50% increase in viewership they get in a town of 3 million when they win (just a made up number) is much better than getting a 50% increase in viewership in a town just 300K.

Im just saying, if your dealing with G5 teams---none of which seem to have huge TV value anyway---I can see where assembling markets could be a strategy to squeeze what you can out of G5 media deals. The network is pretty much always guaranteed of having good viewership in 6 large cities every year. I'd rather have that than guaranteed good ratings in 6 towns of 300K.

To an extent, I would think you could make the same argument with regard to enrollment size. All else being equal---for media value, wouldn't it generally be better to have all large enrollment universities in your conference and no small privates? Larger enrollments would be expected to generate more alumni, creating more potential viewers that would be connected to the schools sports teams, and thus higher ratings and attendance.

For the most part, it appears that CUSA has tried to follow both the markets and the large enrollment strategies during their last expansion. I think there is a reasonable logic to that path.

(12-07-2014 02:23 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  So--here is the method to the market madness. If you have a 12 team conference made up of all large market teams---then 50% of the teams will win, and 50% will lose. If those winning teams are in markets of 3 million---then the 50% increase in viewership they get in a town of 3 million when they win (just a made up number) is much better than getting a 50% increase in viewership in a town just 300K.

But also, in many cases the accumulated alumni of a 20,000-30,000 enrollment state university adds up to more people in more markets than the "percentage of local people who care times local market size". And a large number of those will also tend to be bandwagon followers, hearing that their alma mater is doing well this year and deciding to check them out.

Which is a good part of what was originally driving regional cable networks to sublicense games from national media partners who picked up the right to second tier FBS conferences ... since the alumni of schools from a region are often distributed around the region, and accumulate in growth centers in the region, you could hope to get some of that bandwagon effect in the main growth centers no matter which teams are hot.

The same underlying economics are in place with "no channel limit" live video streaming, except there is no reason for the national media partner to franchise that out ... they can stream it themselves without the channel limit forcing them to pick and choose.

Which is why the VA / WV / KY / TN / NC cluster is a reasonably good regional core for CUSA East, with the two South Florida schools to give them all access to the South Florida recruiting grounds.

(12-06-2014 11:35 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(12-06-2014 06:21 PM)ESE84 Wrote:  

(12-05-2014 07:39 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  Its because if they aren't blocked they should be. CUSA already has 4 Texas schools in it and they all play bad football.

Wrong again. One of the four is bowl eligible for the third straight year, and won C-USA in 2013. The three year moving average of year end strength is trending upwards, and we should be right back in the C-USA champion hunt in 2015.

Outside of Boise State and Northern Illinois, G5 schools play bad football.

Others have an occasional good year like Marshall and Colorado State did. Georgia Southern has potential to play good football but that is determined over an extended period of performance.

Just my opinion, but I think Ga Southern is in position to make some serious noise soon. The state of GA has the best ratio of FBS signees for the number of FBS schools. UGA and GA Tech sign about 35 players a year, so 135 have to go out of state or sign with Ga Southern or Ga State. Also, Ga Southern is only a 4-5 hour drive to central Florida, so we have always drawn players from there. Throw in the fact that we have a solid foundation of winning championships over 4 decades and are the only team south of Atlanta, I think we will do well. A conference would be smart to look beyond the recent factors that drove conference realignment as Ga Southern is of a different mold.

With UAB leaving, CUSA is really turning into two separate conferences geographically especially if a school from Louisiana, Arkansas or Texas are added. Given the south/southwest and eastern split the best move could be to go to 18. Each division would only play the teams in their division with a championship game determining the champion.