Make conference payouts performance based on REVENUE SPORTS ranking. Win more, make more. Stop feeding the leeches and make them invest and perform or starve. And also payout based on demand. If tier 1/2 outlets request your team play on Facebook because you're more popular, then you get compensated for the loss of exposure. If you're taking one for the conference then the conference can pay you for it.

I'm not talking about giving anyone an advantage over the others. Start fresh and tally it up and payouts to be based on a scale of what your team did in the TWO major revenue sports that everyone here has to play, with bonuses for winning bowls, tournaments, reg season, national tournament, NY6 bowl participation, etc, etc. And schools selected by inverted higher tier, worse media bullsh!t get paid more, too. In other words if your school always falls to the 3rd tier if shown on media because no one requests to see your team, then you aren't worth what another school is that selected by our media partners to be featured.

Then schools that give the most back will not feel like they are doing it all for nothing while others sit back and collect a check for winning in field hockey. Something has to light a fire under the a$$ of the dead weight in this conference or compel them to find somewhere else to go. This right here is why some of us don't want to be here anymore and is the heart of the matter, really. I'm surprised LaTech isn't more sympathetic to this point of view as they always perform well in basketball and football and then have to fund UTEP's disastrous athletic program (for example). But their fans are some of the first to defend CUSA.

Don't care if done as conference on the whole or by division. I would have a whole ceremony announcing the top payouts and the biggest losers. Shame those mfers into not sucking. Encouragement isn't working, people.

(09-15-2021 12:08 AM)MUther Wrote:  Make conference payouts performance based on REVENUE SPORTS ranking. Win more, make more. Stop feeding the leeches and make them invest and perform or starve. And also payout based on demand. If tier 1/2 outlets request your team play on Facebook because you're more popular, then you get compensated for the loss of exposure. If you're taking one for the conference then the conference can pay you for it.

I'm not talking about giving anyone an advantage over the others. Start fresh and tally it up and payouts to be based on a scale of what your team did in the TWO major revenue sports that everyone here has to play, with bonuses for winning bowls, tournaments, reg season, national tournament, NY6 bowl participation, etc, etc. And schools selected by inverted higher tier, worse media bullsh!t get paid more, too. In other words if your school always falls to the 3rd tier if shown on media because no one requests to see your team, then you aren't worth what another school is that selected by our media partners to be featured.

Then schools that give the most back will not feel like they are doing it all for nothing while others sit back and collect a check for winning in field hockey. Something has to light a fire under the a$$ of the dead weight in this conference or compel them to find somewhere else to go. This right here is why some of us don't want to be here anymore and is the heart of the matter, really. I'm surprised LaTech isn't more sympathetic to this point of view as they always perform well in basketball and football and then have to fund UTEP's disastrous athletic program (for example). But their fans are some of the first to defend CUSA.

Don't care if done as conference on the whole or by division. I would have a whole ceremony announcing the top payouts and the biggest losers. Shame those mfers into not sucking. Encouragement isn't working, people.

Unfortunately the CUSA HQ aren't going to do anything that might require some extra work.

Simply get rid of Judy.

Yes. This is what I've been saying. There's no reason we should be getting the same amount of TV money as Charlotte, FIU, and most of the others to be honest. We get stuck on effin Facebook because it's part of the Tier 1/2 of our media.

The TV revenue should be split based on:

X amount for Tier 1 games selected
X amount for Tier 2 games selected
X amount for Tier 3 games selected

Do that and I will all of a sudden be more interested in this conference. These payments would obviously fluctuate from year to year, but this is the only fair way to do it.

The TV executives have already proven who the most valuable brands in the conference are, and there is a major disparity in value. No reason for the top brands to be providing money to the dead weight in this conference.

(09-15-2021 08:31 AM)herdfan129 Wrote:  Yes. This is what I've been saying. There's no reason we should be getting the same amount of TV money as Charlotte, FIU, and most of the others to be honest. We get stuck on effin Facebook because it's part of the Tier 1/2 of our media.

The TV revenue should be split based on:

X amount for Tier 1 games selected
X amount for Tier 2 games selected
X amount for Tier 3 games selected

Do that and I will all of a sudden be more interested in this conference. These payments would obviously fluctuate from year to year, but this is the only fair way to do it.

The TV executives have already proven who the most valuable brands in the conference are, and there is a major disparity in value. No reason for the top brands to be providing money to the dead weight in this conference.

We want universities to treat their Athletics like capitalism, but let's face it, most universities are more in tune with a government job than they are the private sector.

It's a completely different mentality. The original post is not wrong, but let's face it, it would never happen.

Well this Tech fan has never viewed the matter in that context before. I can't speak for other Tech supporters, but personally I have looked at whatever conference we were in as a whole and hoped "rising waters lift all boats." That we succeed, or fail, together.

However, MUther, you do present an interesting concept. Of course, I would be remiss if I didn't reference the recent talk of Marshall leaving CUSA, which appears to be gathering steam. If MU wants to dig in and try to make CUSA better, great! And I would hope Tech and others would step up and stand shoulder to shoulder with you to make positive change happen. If MU is only really interested in leaving for "greener pastures" than whatever sensible proposals originating there are moot.

As for your proposal, for the sake of academic discussion, it does present some challenges, and would be very interesting to see if/how other conferences might adopt it. The SEC...it's really Bama, and UGA, and to a lesser degree, LSU, and Florida, and....no one else really who is carrying the load. I suppose one could include Kentucky (until very recently) for MBB which also pays some bills. Vandy is just along for the free ride, baby!

As for, in the bigger picture, why Tech isn't on board re: UTEP or anyone else, is probably because we are just trying to make our way through the gauntlet ourselves. We have a small athletic budget, in a rural setting, and are not in a position to cast disparity on any other school.

(09-15-2021 08:31 AM)herdfan129 Wrote:  Yes. This is what I've been saying. There's no reason we should be getting the same amount of TV money as Charlotte, FIU, and most of the others to be honest. We get stuck on effin Facebook because it's part of the Tier 1/2 of our media.

The TV revenue should be split based on:

X amount for Tier 1 games selected
X amount for Tier 2 games selected
X amount for Tier 3 games selected

Do that and I will all of a sudden be more interested in this conference. These payments would obviously fluctuate from year to year, but this is the only fair way to do it.

The TV executives have already proven who the most valuable brands in the conference are, and there is a major disparity in value. No reason for the top brands to be providing money to the dead weight in this conference.

Yep. I assume this is a big part of why Texas and OU left the Big XII. But, this is the story in virtually every conference though. You have the folks that are the real producers, and the folks that are consumers. Does Vanderbilt "deserve" the same money that Alabama gets? Does Utah deserve the same money that USC is responsible for driving? Does Iowa deserve the same payout as Penn State or Michigan?

I would hope that a "conference" of schools would work together, as Tech80 said...to help all its members rise. Certainly if some of the membership isn't pulling their weight...well, as I said, I think there are a lot of reasons for why that might happen, but it doesn't make the producers feel any better, i suppose.

(09-15-2021 08:43 AM)Tech80 Wrote:  Well this Tech fan has never viewed the matter in that context before. I can't speak for other Tech supporters, but personally I have looked at whatever conference we were in as a whole and hoped "rising waters lift all boats." That we succeed, or fail, together.

However, MUther, you do present an interesting concept. Of course, I would be remiss if I didn't reference the recent talk of Marshall leaving CUSA, which appears to be gathering steam. If MU wants to dig in and try to make CUSA better, great! And I would hope Tech and others would step up and stand shoulder to shoulder with you to make positive change happen. If MU is only really interested in leaving for "greener pastures" than whatever sensible proposals originating there are moot.

As for your proposal, for the sake of academic discussion, it does present some challenges, and would be very interesting to see if/how other conferences might adopt it. The SEC...it's really Bama, and UGA, and to a lesser degree, LSU, and Florida, and....no one else really who is carrying the load. I suppose one could include Kentucky (until very recently) for MBB which also pays some bills. Vandy is just along for the free ride, baby!

As for, in the bigger picture, why Tech isn't on board re: UTEP or anyone else, is probably because we are just trying to make our way through the gauntlet ourselves. We have a small athletic budget, in a rural setting, and are not in a position to cast disparity on any other school.

Great post.

(09-15-2021 12:08 AM)MUther Wrote:  Make conference payouts performance based on REVENUE SPORTS ranking. Win more, make more. Stop feeding the leeches and make them invest and perform or starve. And also payout based on demand. If tier 1/2 outlets request your team play on Facebook because you're more popular, then you get compensated for the loss of exposure. If you're taking one for the conference then the conference can pay you for it.

I'm not talking about giving anyone an advantage over the others. Start fresh and tally it up and payouts to be based on a scale of what your team did in the TWO major revenue sports that everyone here has to play, with bonuses for winning bowls, tournaments, reg season, national tournament, NY6 bowl participation, etc, etc. And schools selected by inverted higher tier, worse media bullsh!t get paid more, too. In other words if your school always falls to the 3rd tier if shown on media because no one requests to see your team, then you aren't worth what another school is that selected by our media partners to be featured.

Then schools that give the most back will not feel like they are doing it all for nothing while others sit back and collect a check for winning in field hockey. Something has to light a fire under the a$$ of the dead weight in this conference or compel them to find somewhere else to go. This right here is why some of us don't want to be here anymore and is the heart of the matter, really. I'm surprised LaTech isn't more sympathetic to this point of view as they always perform well in basketball and football and then have to fund UTEP's disastrous athletic program (for example). But their fans are some of the first to defend CUSA.

Don't care if done as conference on the whole or by division. I would have a whole ceremony announcing the top payouts and the biggest losers. Shame those mfers into not sucking. Encouragement isn't working, people.

Go independent.

The answer is simple: Win games. Repeat.

(09-15-2021 08:48 AM)FAU Connoisseur! Wrote:  

(09-15-2021 12:08 AM)MUther Wrote:  Make conference payouts performance based on REVENUE SPORTS ranking. Win more, make more. Stop feeding the leeches and make them invest and perform or starve. And also payout based on demand. If tier 1/2 outlets request your team play on Facebook because you're more popular, then you get compensated for the loss of exposure. If you're taking one for the conference then the conference can pay you for it.

I'm not talking about giving anyone an advantage over the others. Start fresh and tally it up and payouts to be based on a scale of what your team did in the TWO major revenue sports that everyone here has to play, with bonuses for winning bowls, tournaments, reg season, national tournament, NY6 bowl participation, etc, etc. And schools selected by inverted higher tier, worse media bullsh!t get paid more, too. In other words if your school always falls to the 3rd tier if shown on media because no one requests to see your team, then you aren't worth what another school is that selected by our media partners to be featured.

Then schools that give the most back will not feel like they are doing it all for nothing while others sit back and collect a check for winning in field hockey. Something has to light a fire under the a$$ of the dead weight in this conference or compel them to find somewhere else to go. This right here is why some of us don't want to be here anymore and is the heart of the matter, really. I'm surprised LaTech isn't more sympathetic to this point of view as they always perform well in basketball and football and then have to fund UTEP's disastrous athletic program (for example). But their fans are some of the first to defend CUSA.

Don't care if done as conference on the whole or by division. I would have a whole ceremony announcing the top payouts and the biggest losers. Shame those mfers into not sucking. Encouragement isn't working, people.

Go independent.

No revenue sharing with leeches if there aren't any leeches.

Succeeding in independence seems an impossible task (at least NMSU and UConn aren't making it work). BYU and Liberty have had success, but they also have deeper pockets to be able to buy games.

I think a program like WKU could survive as an independent for a handful of seasons, but it would take a lot of luck to remain relevant for more than that.

Figure one FCS home game a year.
At least two body bag road games against the P5, probably 3.
Home and home series with G5.

Hypothetical schedule:

Year 1:

Home vs. UTM
@Bama
@Wisconsin
@Nebraska
Home vs MTSU
@Uconn
Home vs. BGSU
@UMass
Home vs. Liberty
@Marshall
Home vs. Army
@FIU

Year 2:
Home vs Tenn State
@Illinois
@Auburn
@Mississippi State
Home vs Uconn
@MTSU
@BGSU
Home vs. UMass
@Liberty
Home vs. Marshal
@Army
Home vs. FIU

Basically stuck playing 5 home games a year for all time. Maybe you can get a nearby P5 to play you at a neutral site from time to time (UK, Vandy in Nashville, IU in Indianapolis, Missouri in St. Louis, etc.). You have no bowl game ties ins, granted even 6-6 becomes a struggle. Just not a situation you want to be in.

(09-15-2021 08:46 AM)chuckk3 Wrote:  

(09-15-2021 08:31 AM)herdfan129 Wrote:  Yes. This is what I've been saying. There's no reason we should be getting the same amount of TV money as Charlotte, FIU, and most of the others to be honest. We get stuck on effin Facebook because it's part of the Tier 1/2 of our media.

The TV revenue should be split based on:

X amount for Tier 1 games selected
X amount for Tier 2 games selected
X amount for Tier 3 games selected

Do that and I will all of a sudden be more interested in this conference. These payments would obviously fluctuate from year to year, but this is the only fair way to do it.

The TV executives have already proven who the most valuable brands in the conference are, and there is a major disparity in value. No reason for the top brands to be providing money to the dead weight in this conference.

Yep. I assume this is a big part of why Texas and OU left the Big XII. But, this is the story in virtually every conference though. You have the folks that are the real producers, and the folks that are consumers. Does Vanderbilt "deserve" the same money that Alabama gets? Does Utah deserve the same money that USC is responsible for driving? Does Iowa deserve the same payout as Penn State or Michigan?

I would hope that a "conference" of schools would work together, as Tech80 said...to help all its members rise. Certainly if some of the membership isn't pulling their weight...well, as I said, I think there are a lot of reasons for why that might happen, but it doesn't make the producers feel any better, i suppose.

Yeah. I get it that other conferences do this except for the MWC giving Boise more money, and the Big 12 used to give Texas more money.

I don't care about other conferences though. There's no reason for Marshall to stay here under the current set-up. I actually like most of the schools in this conference, but I'm not cool with Marshall getting the same $500k/TV Revenue as all of the other schools when we are forced to play on Facebook just because FB is part of the Tier 1/2 package. We didn't get a single game on NFL Network during that experiment because all of our games were already selected by mother effin Facebook.

If Marshall is to stay in this conference then there needs to be some structural changes to the media distributions and the most fair way to do it is how I outlined above. As teams improve or drop it will be reflected in the amount of games they have chosen so it will all work out to reward the teams who are the most valuable.

As Tech fans you all should also want this as you have good TV viewership numbers as well. There's no reason you should be getting the same payout as Charlotte or even UAB with their abysmal numbers.

(09-15-2021 08:57 AM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  

(09-15-2021 08:48 AM)FAU Connoisseur! Wrote:  

(09-15-2021 12:08 AM)MUther Wrote:  Make conference payouts performance based on REVENUE SPORTS ranking. Win more, make more. Stop feeding the leeches and make them invest and perform or starve. And also payout based on demand. If tier 1/2 outlets request your team play on Facebook because you're more popular, then you get compensated for the loss of exposure. If you're taking one for the conference then the conference can pay you for it.

I'm not talking about giving anyone an advantage over the others. Start fresh and tally it up and payouts to be based on a scale of what your team did in the TWO major revenue sports that everyone here has to play, with bonuses for winning bowls, tournaments, reg season, national tournament, NY6 bowl participation, etc, etc. And schools selected by inverted higher tier, worse media bullsh!t get paid more, too. In other words if your school always falls to the 3rd tier if shown on media because no one requests to see your team, then you aren't worth what another school is that selected by our media partners to be featured.

Then schools that give the most back will not feel like they are doing it all for nothing while others sit back and collect a check for winning in field hockey. Something has to light a fire under the a$$ of the dead weight in this conference or compel them to find somewhere else to go. This right here is why some of us don't want to be here anymore and is the heart of the matter, really. I'm surprised LaTech isn't more sympathetic to this point of view as they always perform well in basketball and football and then have to fund UTEP's disastrous athletic program (for example). But their fans are some of the first to defend CUSA.

Don't care if done as conference on the whole or by division. I would have a whole ceremony announcing the top payouts and the biggest losers. Shame those mfers into not sucking. Encouragement isn't working, people.

Go independent.

No revenue sharing with leeches if there aren't any leeches.

I notice it's the leeches who are opposed to splitting the revenue based on actual value of the programs.

Most G5 schools are going to go through cycles of success > lose good coach to bigger school > rebuild/not successful > hopefully success again. Are you suggesting that a school should get conference money, then lose it, then hope to get it again? As an AD, how would you budget for that? Half of the conference teams will always have a losing conference record. Are you suggesting that half the teams in the conference get no, or limited money? Is there any conference in the world where you think this idea would float? Do you think that Marshall would be able to recruit 8-10 other schools to join with them based on this kind of plan?

clt says if $500k makes that big of an impact to your AD, you have bigger issues.

(09-15-2021 10:48 AM)herdfan129 Wrote:  I notice it's the leeches who are opposed to splitting the revenue based on actual value of the programs.

You heard it here first folks! If it weren't for the leeches they have to pay to keep up, Marshall would be rolling in the cash!

They are the tugboat that keeps the CUSA barge moving down the river!

I was planning to go online and *****. Is that not working?

(09-15-2021 11:01 AM)Nugget49er Wrote:  Most G5 schools are going to go through cycles of success > lose good coach to bigger school > rebuild/not successful > hopefully success again. Are you suggesting that a school should get conference money, then lose it, then hope to get it again? As an AD, how would you budget for that? Half of the conference teams will always have a losing conference record. Are you suggesting that half the teams in the conference get no, or limited money? Is there any conference in the world where you think this idea would float? Do you think that Marshall would be able to recruit 8-10 other schools to join with them based on this kind of plan?

I'm not basing it on wins and losses as honestly, that doesn't always relate to money. I laid out my plan. The conference gets X amount of money to air Y amount of Tier 1 games, Tier 2 games, Tier 3 games. Pay the media revenue accordingly.

Lets pretend CUSA was getting $10 million per year to air 20 Tier 1 games. That would be equal to $500k/game in terms of value.

Lets say La Tech has 6 games selected in the Tier 1 package. That means La Tech for Tier 1 should be paid out $1.5 Million for those Tier 1 games. $250k times 6 games. Value is $500k a game but there are two teams playing so that's $250k/per school.

Now lets say Marshall has been terrible, no one cares cause we are in a small market, blah blah blah......we only get 1 game selected on Tier 1. We would only receive $250k for our Tier 1 payout.

Do the same thing for Tiers 2 and 3 which are obviously generating less revenue per game as they are Tier 2/3.

What in the world would be wrong with this?

(09-15-2021 11:07 AM)ghostofclt! Wrote:  clt says if $500k makes that big of an impact to your AD, you have bigger issues.

It's not $500k that's the issue. Marshall and a few others are bringing the value to the media deal (as proven by how many games each team gets selected in each Tier), but we are splitting the revenue evenly.

This doesn't matter in the SEC as their Tier 1 games are rewarded with the exposure so they don't care as much. This is not the case in CUSA as our top games end up on mother effin FACEBOOK. That's not the same as playing on CBS. If we were playing ECU this week on CBS or even ESPN2 then I wouldn't complain about us all splitting the revenue evenly as our extra exposure would make up for it.