Cowen says in this interview that the alliance never put the alliance forward to the TV networks for an evaluation and they are going into this new league as a leap of faith.

He knows the alliance is risky but he said MWC and CUSA presidents think there is even more risk by just reloading back into 2 divisions of 12. Isn't that what they'll end up doing anyways once they move to 24 under the pod system?

http://www.hogsportsradio.com/content/tu...e-college-


Another item worth noting is he says that the whole purpose of allowing greater access for non-AQ's back in 2006 was to show the value of the non-AQ in the marketplace and now since that has been accomplished its time to scrap the entire AQ system. I'm not sure how that flows logically.

(02-16-2012 11:49 AM)Louis Kitton Wrote:  Cowen says in this interview that the alliance never put the alliance forward to the TV networks for an evaluation and they are going into this new league as a leap of faith.

He knows the alliance is risky but he said MWC and CUSA presidents think there is even more risk by just reloading back into 2 divisions of 12. Isn't that what they'll end up doing anyways once they move to 24 under the pod system?

http://www.hogsportsradio.com/content/tu...e-college-


Another item worth noting is he says that the whole purpose of allowing greater access for non-AQ's back in 2006 was to show the value of the non-AQ in the marketplace and now since that has been accomplished its time to scrap the entire AQ system. I'm not sure how that flows logically.

No no no...

We were jsut assured that though research showed a doubling or tripling of TV revenue was going to happen..

(02-16-2012 11:50 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  No no no...

We were jsut assured that though research showed a doubling or tripling of TV revenue was going to happen..

TV consultants told them that, not the networks. So it's cool!

(And I'm getting a new job)

(02-16-2012 11:50 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(02-16-2012 11:49 AM)Louis Kitton Wrote:  Cowen says in this interview that the alliance never put the alliance forward to the TV networks for an evaluation and they are going into this new league as a leap of faith.

He knows the alliance is risky but he said MWC and CUSA presidents think there is even more risk by just reloading back into 2 divisions of 12. Isn't that what they'll end up doing anyways once they move to 24 under the pod system?

http://www.hogsportsradio.com/content/tu...e-college-


Another item worth noting is he says that the whole purpose of allowing greater access for non-AQ's back in 2006 was to show the value of the non-AQ in the marketplace and now since that has been accomplished its time to scrap the entire AQ system. I'm not sure how that flows logically.

No no no...

We were jsut assured that though research showed a doubling or tripling of TV revenue was going to happen..

Numerous AD's from the CUSA-MWC conglomerate have said on record that preliminary estimates have comeback for double the per school payout.

They lied. That is all there is to it and should be ashamed for it.

ESPN doesn't want to pay for CUSA-MWC because they want to put their chips into the Big East. NBC isn't going to sign CUSA-MWC because the MWC just skipped out of its contract. The only partners willing to sign are CBS-CS and Fox....

They'll be lucky to earn the same payout as before maybe slightly more. Doubling it is highly optimistic; if Boise and Memphis had stayed it was possible but not now.

(02-16-2012 11:56 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(02-16-2012 11:50 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  No no no...

We were jsut assured that though research showed a doubling or tripling of TV revenue was going to happen..

TV consultants told them that, not the networks. So it's cool!

(And I'm getting a new job)

Cowen said there was no consultation of any kind, formal or informal. I would take his word over the AD's because he was the mastermind behind the non-AQ coalition and increased access.

The AD's just blew a lot of smoke about it because they think it will be better than reloading alone. They are probably right but not by much.

(02-16-2012 12:01 PM)Louis Kitton Wrote:  

(02-16-2012 11:56 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(02-16-2012 11:50 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  No no no...

We were jsut assured that though research showed a doubling or tripling of TV revenue was going to happen..

TV consultants told them that, not the networks. So it's cool!

(And I'm getting a new job)

Cowen said there was no consultation of any kind, formal or informal. I would take his word over the AD's because he was the mastermind behind the non-AQ coalition and increased access.

The AD's just blew a lot of smoke about it because they think it will be better than reloading alone. They are probably right but not by much.

Too late. Look at my new credential.

Leap of faith.

Good luck with that.

When the BCS system goes byebye, the Big East will propose legislation that will lock out all new conferences from the playoff and bowls for 5 years, similar to autobid for NCAA tourney. Nuclear to alliance.

I love how you guys keep putting down the new alliance, but even if it does just come out to the same amount of money per team as they had before, how is that still not better than the MAC?

(02-16-2012 02:51 PM)donavanb Wrote:  I love how you guys keep putting down the new alliance, but even if it does just come out to the same amount of money per team as they had before, how is that still not better than the MAC?

Because the ridiculous amount of travel expenses lead to a net loss? You NEED to make way more than the MAC just to break even.

But, I don't see how all the weakest teams from the MWC and C-USA would get the same amount of money per team as they used to when they had all the better teams still with them.

(02-16-2012 02:51 PM)donavanb Wrote:  I love how you guys keep putting down the new alliance, but even if it does just come out to the same amount of money per team as they had before, how is that still not better than the MAC?

1) I doubt that less SMU, Houston, Boise, TCU, BYU, Utah, Memphis, and UCF the LBC is worth as much as CUSA and WMC were worth 5 years ago

2) 1 million more per school, or 4% increase in UB's budget, is not worth sending our non revenue sports all over the face of the nation.

(02-16-2012 04:27 PM)uakronkid Wrote:  

(02-16-2012 02:51 PM)donavanb Wrote:  I love how you guys keep putting down the new alliance, but even if it does just come out to the same amount of money per team as they had before, how is that still not better than the MAC?

Because the ridiculous amount of travel expenses lead to a net loss? You NEED to make way more than the MAC just to break even.

But, I don't see how all the weakest teams from the MWC and C-USA would get the same amount of money per team as they used to when they had all the better teams still with them.

I'll be honest and say I am not sure how it will all shake out either as far as TV money. I am a Marshall fan as you can tell, but I liked the MAC when we were there and respect the programs in the MAC. But also IMHO CUSA and/or this new Alliance is still a step up from the MAC. Both draw more fans, have bigger budgets and compete at a higher level. Now how much of a step up is debatable. I am sure some on here will disagree and I have no problem with that.

My second point though is that to claim "the ridiculous amount of travel expenses will result in a net loss" is itself ridiculous. Those making that claim apparently have not read the press releases about how this new Alliance will be setup. There will be no regular season crossover games in football with the western side of the Alliance, so Marshall will only still play teams it did when in CUSA and any new eastern teams added, with the exception of the 2 teams in the conference champ game. The other sports will be setup in a similar fashion. So the travel expenses will be no different and maybe even less than what it was in the current CUSA.

While Marshall was in the MAC Marshall fans put down CUSA, now CUSA fans put down the Big East. Its just the way it is. With that said, I still root for some teams in the MAC and still have a good hate towards some of the schools in a rivalry type way. Good luck and GO HERD

Time will tell and tears will fall. Just ask those that were left behind when the SWC broke up, if their situation stayed the same.

(02-16-2012 06:19 PM)donavanb Wrote:  I'll be honest and say I am not sure how it will all shake out either as far as TV money. I am a Marshall fan as you can tell, but I liked the MAC when we were there and respect the programs in the MAC. But also IMHO CUSA and/or this new Alliance is still a step up from the MAC. Both draw more fans, have bigger budgets and compete at a higher level. Now how much of a step up is debatable. I am sure some on here will disagree and I have no problem with that.

A very, very baby step (as sargins and RPI of the remaining teams would indicate)

Quote:My second point though is that to claim "the ridiculous amount of travel expenses will result in a net loss" is itself ridiculous. Those making that claim apparently have not read the press releases about how this new Alliance will be setup.

I know, I know, the 'non conference-conference' If you think this pod structure will really put your travel anywhere near what MAC schools have to spend... Land, Florida, You..

Dude the pods and the segregation of the "conference" is what will eventually make it politically untenable. Take the infighting between the BE hoops schools and football schools... Multiply that by ten and thats what is going to happen in the LBC

I am surprised anybody would be willing to do pods again considering what it did to the WAC.

I understand what you guys are saying. Will this work? Who knows for sure, at least I am willing to admit that. Some here think they know for sure that it won't.

To the response about sargans and RPI, I said it was debatable and really the most debatable is strength on the field or court. But the other areas it is less debatable, CUSA is a step up in revenues, fans support, better and more bowl tie-ins. That isn't a slap in the face to the MAC, it just is what it is. Just like the Big East, the ACC, the other AQ conferences are a step up from CUSA, and The SEC is a step up from the ACC. Does that mean that MAC schools can't compete on the field with CUSA? NO, It just means when you add up everything, strength of competition, fan support, money, Bowls that CUSA or the Alliance if it is done right is a step up. So I just don't get where most fans here want to act as if we are somehow the bottom dwellers now that will be lucky to even make it.

(02-16-2012 07:59 PM)donavanb Wrote:  I understand what you guys are saying. Will this work? Who knows for sure, at least I am willing to admit that. Some here think they know for sure that it won't.

To the response about sargans and RPI, I said it was debatable and really the most debatable is strength on the field or court. But the other areas it is less debatable, CUSA is a step up in revenues, fans support, better and more bowl tie-ins. That isn't a slap in the face to the MAC, it just is what it is.

A "step up" implies that the budgets in CUSA (at comparable schools) are larger due to these fantastic "revenues"

In fact though if you compare the budgets of Temple, Ohio and Miami to Marshall, Southern Miss and East Carolina you will find the MAC in fact has larger budgets than CUSA in these prime comparable cases.

CUSA does have the private schools with larger budgets but most of the larger size is due to larger tuition at schools like Tulane and Rice than at a public university.

CUSA averages 25,000 fans. The MAC averages 17,000. The SEC averages 75,000 while the Big Ten averages 70,000. To the outside world the MAC and CUSA have similar attendance numbers, with a few exceptions like East Carolina. ECU draws like they are an ACC school.

(02-16-2012 07:59 PM)donavanb Wrote:  I understand what you guys are saying. Will this work? Who knows for sure, at least I am willing to admit that. Some here think they know for sure that it won't.

Yes. When people say, "Maybe this perpetual motion machine might work." Or, "Maybe with a bigger cape I can fly like Superman." There are people on this board who can know for sure that they won't work. It's the same for the current pitch of the Alliance.