(11-19-2012 04:33 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  I think we are at a point where you stop thinking about money (because the gap is just going to continue to narrow) and bowl bids (ditto).

The question becomes who is it you want to align with.

Out of the current CUSA alignment who do they have that our fans would prefer aligning with OVER our current alignment? Throw out the BS about the uniform patches and all that. Is there someone they have that the fans given a choice between whatever Sun Belt team they look forward to playing, would opt for a CUSA team.

Arkansas State: USM and Tulsa, but as I've said elsewhere, Tulsa might not even be in the picture when the dust settles.

Georgia State: Got me unless its UAB or ECU, Atlanta is sort of off on an island.

FAU: FIU

Louisiana: Tulane, La.Tech, Rice. Maybe USM

ULM: La.Tech, Tulane, probably USM.

MTSU: I dunno maybe UAB. It'd be hard for UAB to match what MTSU has had with WKU and Troy.

USA: UAB, USM

Texas State: UNT, UTSA, Rice

WKU: UAB but all things being equal I doubt WKU fans prefer playing UAB to MTSU.

I don't see anyone in the Sun Belt prefering Marshall, UTEP, ODU, Charlotte (OK WKU fans might prefer the last two since basketball is still a sport) to whatever Sun Belt team they deem a rival and Tulsa, USM, and maybe UAB and Rice are the only ones where being in the same state isn't a factor.

Louisiana would be USM, Rice, Tulane, Tech. If we HAD to leave out one of those it would be Tulane, not USM; we would just cut a deal with USM to play every year in New Orleans and make both of our fan bases happy. Besides lsu, the Cajuns and Golden Eagles have larger fan bases in New Orleans than any other schools, and both are about the same distance from the Crescent City. Tulane doesn't draw flies; a game between Jesuit and Holy Cross [High Schools] gets more fans than the typical Tulane game.

If we had to chose only two, it would be Rice and USM. Our second largest concentration of alumni [not counting Lafayette] is in Houston.

(11-19-2012 04:33 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  I think we are at a point where you stop thinking about money (because the gap is just going to continue to narrow) and bowl bids (ditto).
The question becomes who is it you want to align with.
Out of the current CUSA alignment who do they have that our fans would prefer aligning with OVER our current alignment? Throw out the BS about the uniform patches and all that. Is there someone they have that the fans given a choice between whatever Sun Belt team they look forward to playing, would opt for a CUSA team.
Arkansas State: USM and Tulsa, but as I've said elsewhere, Tulsa might not even be in the picture when the dust settles.

I stopped reading right there. In which parallel universe do the school presidents "stop thinking about money"?

Stop toying with them young'ns asf; you know they eat that stuff up.

(11-20-2012 10:07 AM)FIUFan Wrote:  

(11-19-2012 04:33 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  I think we are at a point where you stop thinking about money (because the gap is just going to continue to narrow) and bowl bids (ditto).
The question becomes who is it you want to align with.
Out of the current CUSA alignment who do they have that our fans would prefer aligning with OVER our current alignment? Throw out the BS about the uniform patches and all that. Is there someone they have that the fans given a choice between whatever Sun Belt team they look forward to playing, would opt for a CUSA team.
Arkansas State: USM and Tulsa, but as I've said elsewhere, Tulsa might not even be in the picture when the dust settles.

I stopped reading right there. In which parallel universe do the school presidents "stop thinking about money"?

Stop toying with them young'ns asf; you know they eat that stuff up.

Cute response, yet you would have been well served reading the remainder. The money gap is narrowing. As I pointed out yesterday. Big East has lost 1/3 of its TV footprint. That means their TV contract is going to look a helluva lot more like the MWC and CUSA deals than the new members had believed. The bulk of the CUSA contract is premium paid by alternate networks to accept presence on channels that draw few eyeballs. More viewers will see the MAC and Sun Belt in regular season games this year than saw CUSA and MWC.

(11-20-2012 11:09 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Cute response, yet you would have been well served reading the remainder. The money gap is narrowing. As I pointed out yesterday. Big East has lost 1/3 of its TV footprint. That means their TV contract is going to look a helluva lot more like the MWC and CUSA deals than the new members had believed. The bulk of the CUSA contract is premium paid by alternate networks to accept presence on channels that draw few eyeballs. More viewers will see the MAC and Sun Belt in regular season games this year than saw CUSA and MWC.

But you're encouraging these fantastic realignment scenarios every time you say forget about the money as it is narrowing. As long as tv money is different, bowl game pay-outs are different, hoops units are different, etc., there's going to be a pecking order. And you can't play these 'Risk-like' games of haphazardly realigning conferences based on past history, regional rivalries and wish-lists.

It's been shown over and over again, there's only one thing that matters in all of this and that is future revenue potential. It sucks but that's the world we live in.

I think something that the powers to be need to look at, how long will fans deal with lossing rivals, losing regional games and start lossing interest. With out the fans, there is no money. No one watches it on TV, No one goes to the games, no one supports the programs.

Ask NASCAR how well they are doing after they expanded and changed from the traditional tracks and traditional cars. Have you seen the stands, empty. Talladega holds over 200k people, this past race there were 70k at the race. Not a good sign, NCAA football is headed down the same path.

(11-20-2012 11:42 AM)Usajags Wrote:  I think something that the powers to be need to look at, how long will fans deal with lossing rivals, losing regional games and start lossing interest. With out the fans, there is no money. No one watches it on TV, No one goes to the games, no one supports the programs.

Ask NASCAR how well they are doing after they expanded and changed from the traditional tracks and traditional cars. Have you seen the stands, empty. Talladega holds over 200k people, this past race there were 70k at the race. Not a good sign, NCAA football is headed down the same path.

That's one of the most intelligent posts I've seen you make. I agree.

(11-20-2012 11:33 AM)FIUFan Wrote:  

(11-20-2012 11:09 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Cute response, yet you would have been well served reading the remainder. The money gap is narrowing. As I pointed out yesterday. Big East has lost 1/3 of its TV footprint. That means their TV contract is going to look a helluva lot more like the MWC and CUSA deals than the new members had believed. The bulk of the CUSA contract is premium paid by alternate networks to accept presence on channels that draw few eyeballs. More viewers will see the MAC and Sun Belt in regular season games this year than saw CUSA and MWC.

But you're encouraging these fantastic realignment scenarios every time you say forget about the money as it is narrowing. As long as tv money is different, bowl game pay-outs are different, hoops units are different, etc., there's going to be a pecking order. And you can't play these 'Risk-like' games of haphazardly realigning conferences based on past history, regional rivalries and wish-lists.

It's been shown over and over again, there's only one thing that matters in all of this and that is future revenue potential. It sucks but that's the world we live in.

Let's look at where things are.

ESPN is reporting Boise, SDSU, and BYU are talking to the MWC. Why would that be?

Simple. The difference in money and bowls has narrowed so much that MWC may well make sense.

Consider this. I've been involved in an athletic program where basketball and football played in different conferences and there was little overlap in those schedules. That comes with a significant marketing cost. Boise is looking at a scenario where San Diego State is the only team on their football schedule that is consistently on their basketball schedule.

Bowl access. Either way for the elite, the game is the same. Be the highest ranked conference champ from among the non-AQ. Playoff be ranked 1-4. Either target is just as achievable in the MWC as in the Big East. (Past data says it is more achievable in MWC).

So what about bowls? Big East options look to be Orlando, Charlotte, New York, Birmingham, Memphis, St. Pete.
MWC options: Las Vegas, San Diego, Fort Worth, Hawaii, New Mexico.
In either case, Tater Bowl could be in the mix.

With each of these bowls very little cash is guaranteed, the bulk comes from ticket sales. Which set of bowls has the highest probability of producing strong sales among the Boise State fan base? Which set of bowls is played in areas Boise strongly recruits?

Which regular season schedule produces the most games in places where Boise concentrates its recruiting?

When this whole deal came up, the Boise president reportedly said they had to come up with $4 million in new revenue just to make the finances work. Anything less and they would end up worse off.

Based on the numbers out there, the financial gap for Boise is going to at best be $4 million and it may well end up being less.

Let's listen to ECU's athletic director. A few years back he was advocating that C-USA go to 16 teams despite the fact that there were not four schools out there that could be added without reducing the per team share of revenue. What sort of idiot proposes cutting revenue? The sort of idiot who understands that the balance sheet isn't simply revenue, it also includes expenses.

He proposed cutting revenue because the change would cut expenses even more. ECU would no longer travel to Texas, Louisiana, and Oklahoma. Non-revenue sports would fly less. Opponents would have greater regional name value driving ticket sales and increasing school revenue even though it would reduce league revenue.

You can think its my pie-in-the-sky thinking but take a look at the current CUSA. They went into the expansion process expecting to take UNT and maybe FIU. Four more teams came in, partly because they wanted to help alleviate the impact of the WAC being killed but in large part because they reached the conclusion that feeding more mouths while negatively impacting league distribution would cut expenses and hopefully drive local ticket sales. Your team is moving to a league that is following my advice.

(11-20-2012 11:54 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(11-20-2012 11:33 AM)FIUFan Wrote:  

(11-20-2012 11:09 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Cute response, yet you would have been well served reading the remainder. The money gap is narrowing. As I pointed out yesterday. Big East has lost 1/3 of its TV footprint. That means their TV contract is going to look a helluva lot more like the MWC and CUSA deals than the new members had believed. The bulk of the CUSA contract is premium paid by alternate networks to accept presence on channels that draw few eyeballs. More viewers will see the MAC and Sun Belt in regular season games this year than saw CUSA and MWC.

But you're encouraging these fantastic realignment scenarios every time you say forget about the money as it is narrowing. As long as tv money is different, bowl game pay-outs are different, hoops units are different, etc., there's going to be a pecking order. And you can't play these 'Risk-like' games of haphazardly realigning conferences based on past history, regional rivalries and wish-lists.

It's been shown over and over again, there's only one thing that matters in all of this and that is future revenue potential. It sucks but that's the world we live in.

Let's look at where things are.

ESPN is reporting Boise, SDSU, and BYU are talking to the MWC. Why would that be?

Simple. The difference in money and bowls has narrowed so much that MWC may well make sense.

Consider this. I've been involved in an athletic program where basketball and football played in different conferences and there was little overlap in those schedules. That comes with a significant marketing cost. Boise is looking at a scenario where San Diego State is the only team on their football schedule that is consistently on their basketball schedule.

Bowl access. Either way for the elite, the game is the same. Be the highest ranked conference champ from among the non-AQ. Playoff be ranked 1-4. Either target is just as achievable in the MWC as in the Big East. (Past data says it is more achievable in MWC).

So what about bowls? Big East options look to be Orlando, Charlotte, New York, Birmingham, Memphis, St. Pete.
MWC options: Las Vegas, San Diego, Fort Worth, Hawaii, New Mexico.
In either case, Tater Bowl could be in the mix.

With each of these bowls very little cash is guaranteed, the bulk comes from ticket sales. Which set of bowls has the highest probability of producing strong sales among the Boise State fan base? Which set of bowls is played in areas Boise strongly recruits?

Which regular season schedule produces the most games in places where Boise concentrates its recruiting?

When this whole deal came up, the Boise president reportedly said they had to come up with $4 million in new revenue just to make the finances work. Anything less and they would end up worse off.

Based on the numbers out there, the financial gap for Boise is going to at best be $4 million and it may well end up being less.

Let's listen to ECU's athletic director. A few years back he was advocating that C-USA go to 16 teams despite the fact that there were not four schools out there that could be added without reducing the per team share of revenue. What sort of idiot proposes cutting revenue? The sort of idiot who understands that the balance sheet isn't simply revenue, it also includes expenses.

He proposed cutting revenue because the change would cut expenses even more. ECU would no longer travel to Texas, Louisiana, and Oklahoma. Non-revenue sports would fly less. Opponents would have greater regional name value driving ticket sales and increasing school revenue even though it would reduce league revenue.

You can think its my pie-in-the-sky thinking but take a look at the current CUSA. They went into the expansion process expecting to take UNT and maybe FIU. Four more teams came in, partly because they wanted to help alleviate the impact of the WAC being killed but in large part because they reached the conclusion that feeding more mouths while negatively impacting league distribution would cut expenses and hopefully drive local ticket sales. Your team is moving to a league that is following my advice.

You appear to be coming to the conclusion that C-USA added all these new members to 'save money' and drive local interest. I come to a completely different conclusion. Though none of the new schools dominate their markets; UNCC is in Charlotte NC, Old Dominion is in Norfolk VA, FIU is in S. Florida, UNT is basically a suburb of Dallas and UTSA speaks for itself.

I'm not sure how these additions are 'cutting costs'. They are being added for their markets and their growth potential. I've always said 'you can't save your way to prosperity'.

As far as Boise and SDSU back to the MWC; sure if it make economic sense, why not? The media dollars have to make sense for those schools to fly across the country to play football. The Big East needs a new model pronto!

(11-20-2012 12:15 PM)FIUFan Wrote:  You appear to be coming to the conclusion that C-USA added all these new members to 'save money' and drive local interest. I come to a completely different conclusion. Though none of the new schools dominate their markets; UNCC is in Charlotte NC, Old Dominion is in Norfolk VA, FIU is in S. Florida, UNT is basically a suburb of Dallas and UTSA speaks for itself.

I'm not sure how these additions are 'cutting costs'. They are being added for their markets and their growth potential. I've always said 'you can't save your way to prosperity'.

As far as Boise and SDSU back to the MWC; sure if it make economic sense, why not? The media dollars have to make sense for those schools to fly across the country to play football. The Big East needs a new model pronto!

Oh it was market driven? Not about making larger more geographically compact divisions (though with an eye to markets).

Ok.

But consider this.

Charlotte is market #25. San Antonio is market #36. Norfolk is #44. La.Tech is market #136.

Atlanta is number 9. Nashville is #29. West Palm is #38

So of the four schools who got "tacked on". Georgia State is in larger market than all four. MTSU in larger market than three. FAU in a larger market than 2.

UTSA fits nicely between UNT and Rice. La.Tech is straight shot out I-20 from UNT and close to Tulane and USM. UNCC and ODU solve travel issues for ECU and Marshall.

If the last four had been pure market decisions the last four would have been Georgia State, UNCC, MTSU, UTSA.

(11-20-2012 12:30 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Oh it was market driven? Not about making larger more geographically compact divisions (though with an eye to markets).

Ok.

But consider this.

Charlotte is market #25. San Antonio is market #36. Norfolk is #44. La.Tech is market #136.

Atlanta is number 9. Nashville is #29. West Palm is #38

So of the four schools who got "tacked on". Georgia State is in larger market than all four. MTSU in larger market than three. FAU in a larger market than 2.

UTSA fits nicely between UNT and Rice. La.Tech is straight shot out I-20 from UNT and close to Tulane and USM. UNCC and ODU solve travel issues for ECU and Marshall.

If the last four had been pure market decisions the last four would have been Georgia State, UNCC, MTSU, UTSA.

I have seen multiple posts from ECU fans about Charlotte and ODU being OK not because they are peer schools to ECU, but because they cut costs for ECU.

Anyone who's ever been to a Dave Ramsey seminar has seen the spreadsheets on how you can cut and save your way to prosperity!

(11-20-2012 12:30 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Oh it was market driven? Not about making larger more geographically compact divisions (though with an eye to markets).
Ok.
But consider this.
Charlotte is market #25. San Antonio is market #36. Norfolk is #44. La.Tech is market #136.
Atlanta is number 9. Nashville is #29. West Palm is #38
So of the four schools who got "tacked on". Georgia State is in larger market than all four. MTSU in larger market than three. FAU in a larger market than 2.
UTSA fits nicely between UNT and Rice. La.Tech is straight shot out I-20 from UNT and close to Tulane and USM. UNCC and ODU solve travel issues for ECU and Marshall.
If the last four had been pure market decisions the last four would [b]have been Georgia State, UNCC, MTSU, UTSA.[/b]

Two of which were added, Ga State is clearly not ready for C-USA and I'm not sure what the politics might have been surrounding MTSU. Maybe it was between UNCC and MTSU and the market won here. UNCC is hardly playing football, must have been a nod to ECU here and their proximity.

(11-20-2012 12:46 PM)VideoGreenEagle Wrote:  I have seen multiple posts from ECU fans about Charlotte and ODU being OK not because they are peer schools to ECU, but because they cut costs for ECU.

Anyone who's ever been to a Dave Ramsey seminar has seen the spreadsheets on how you can cut and save your way to prosperity!

Not much to cut on $50,000/year; unless you live in a shoebox and eat mac and cheese every night....not much of an existence if you ask me. Gotta keep growing.

(11-20-2012 01:06 PM)FIUFan Wrote:  Two of which were added, Ga State is clearly not ready for C-USA and I'm not sure what the politics might have been surrounding MTSU. Maybe it was between UNCC and MTSU and the market won here. UNCC is hardly playing football, must have been a nod to ECU here and their proximity.

One rumor I saw at the time was UAB visited and advocated for MTSU, Marshall & ECU preferred UNCC & ODU.

I dont know what to think anymore. I'm just REALLY tired of this happening EVERY off season.

From a completly selfish standpoint I want FAU to have 1 or more Florida teams in it. The confrences that fit that qualification are CUSA,BigEast,ACC, SEC. Only one that is a realistic option is CUSA.

FAU is in the same boat that UNT was. No one real close in confrence. Thats why I feel we would probably jump if CUSA came a calling, despite the fact that the SBC has made tremendous gains on that confrence over the past few years.

(11-20-2012 01:06 PM)FIUFan Wrote:  

(11-20-2012 12:30 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Oh it was market driven? Not about making larger more geographically compact divisions (though with an eye to markets).
Ok.
But consider this.
Charlotte is market #25. San Antonio is market #36. Norfolk is #44. La.Tech is market #136.
Atlanta is number 9. Nashville is #29. West Palm is #38
So of the four schools who got "tacked on". Georgia State is in larger market than all four. MTSU in larger market than three. FAU in a larger market than 2.
UTSA fits nicely between UNT and Rice. La.Tech is straight shot out I-20 from UNT and close to Tulane and USM. UNCC and ODU solve travel issues for ECU and Marshall.
If the last four had been pure market decisions the last four would [b]have been Georgia State, UNCC, MTSU, UTSA.[/b]

Two of which were added, Ga State is clearly not ready for C-USA and I'm not sure what the politics might have been surrounding MTSU. Maybe it was between UNCC and MTSU and the market won here. UNCC is hardly playing football, must have been a nod to ECU here and their proximity.

Seriously now. Charlotte didn't even have a football coach. UTSA has all the earmarks of a smoke and mirrors campaign. ODU couldn't even agree to join in a timely manner.

(11-20-2012 02:16 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Seriously now. Charlotte didn't even have a football coach. UTSA has all the earmarks of a smoke and mirrors campaign. ODU couldn't even agree to join in a timely manner.

Really? UTSA seems to have hit the ground running. If anyone is smoke and mirrors (sorry panama) it appears to be Ga. State, but hey, you can't argue with the Big A.

ODU is 'old school' and Charlotte is market with a capital M. So it's going to be fun to watch this thing gel.

How can you say Ga St is smoke and mirrors. They are exactly what we are afraid they are. A poor team with with poor attendance in football. What was a good team last year in basketball with SBC type attendance.

(11-20-2012 01:21 PM)BeliefBlazer Wrote:  

(11-20-2012 01:06 PM)FIUFan Wrote:  Two of which were added, Ga State is clearly not ready for C-USA and I'm not sure what the politics might have been surrounding MTSU. Maybe it was between UNCC and MTSU and the market won here. UNCC is hardly playing football, must have been a nod to ECU here and their proximity.

One rumor I saw at the time was UAB visited and advocated for MTSU, Marshall & ECU preferred UNCC & ODU.

I know that Terry Holland at ECU has long been an advocate of MT/WKU as a package deal, but that was before either one of UNCC or ODU had football, so who knows...