(01-20-2013 07:17 PM)TheRevSWT Wrote:  

(01-20-2013 06:24 PM)Turnberry79 Wrote:  Agreed, but if the SBC plays its cards right it could become a much better conference, filling seats and putting an exciting brand of football on the field that attracts television and corporate sponsors. The grass always looks greener on the other side. Conference-USA is taking a major risk with their big market strategy by loading up on teams that appear at first blush unable to attract "in stadium" fan support or television viewers in numbers that will generate profits for television partners. Only time will tell if their strategy works, but if does not attract fans in stadium or viewers on television then you will see media rights fall in the next negotiation. All of the Group of Five think their product is worth more than the value the networks have placed on it.

CUSA is betting on potential. These teams (in theory) COULD be better with more money. The Markets they have mean that they should be able to get a better TV contract, and thus give the teams more money. It's a self-feeding prophecy.

Of course, it can also blow up in their face, if the extra money does not mean more wins.

Birmingham is bigger than Tuscaloosa. "in theory" they have more potential than Bama. In theory.

(01-20-2013 07:17 PM)TheRevSWT Wrote:  

(01-20-2013 06:24 PM)Turnberry79 Wrote:  Agreed, but if the SBC plays its cards right it could become a much better conference, filling seats and putting an exciting brand of football on the field that attracts television and corporate sponsors. The grass always looks greener on the other side. Conference-USA is taking a major risk with their big market strategy by loading up on teams that appear at first blush unable to attract "in stadium" fan support or television viewers in numbers that will generate profits for television partners. Only time will tell if their strategy works, but if does not attract fans in stadium or viewers on television then you will see media rights fall in the next negotiation. All of the Group of Five think their product is worth more than the value the networks have placed on it.

CUSA is betting on potential. These teams (in theory) COULD be better with more money. The Markets they have mean that they should be able to get a better TV contract, and thus give the teams more money. It's a self-feeding prophecy.

Of course, it can also blow up in their face, if the extra money does not mean more wins.

Wait until the second contract cycle comes up after their ratings are poor and the networks/cable channels with the rights are showing games with tons of empty seats.........which makes for terrible TV. That will prove that the big market strategy was a loser and the second cycle media rights contracts will reflect that reality.. Many large metro markets have colleges where no one cares about their teams or games. Have you seen a UAB or Tulane game? That is what a large number of the CUSA games are going to look like.

(01-20-2013 08:30 PM)GSU Eagles Wrote:  

(01-20-2013 07:17 PM)TheRevSWT Wrote:  

(01-20-2013 06:24 PM)Turnberry79 Wrote:  Agreed, but if the SBC plays its cards right it could become a much better conference, filling seats and putting an exciting brand of football on the field that attracts television and corporate sponsors. The grass always looks greener on the other side. Conference-USA is taking a major risk with their big market strategy by loading up on teams that appear at first blush unable to attract "in stadium" fan support or television viewers in numbers that will generate profits for television partners. Only time will tell if their strategy works, but if does not attract fans in stadium or viewers on television then you will see media rights fall in the next negotiation. All of the Group of Five think their product is worth more than the value the networks have placed on it.

CUSA is betting on potential. These teams (in theory) COULD be better with more money. The Markets they have mean that they should be able to get a better TV contract, and thus give the teams more money. It's a self-feeding prophecy.

Of course, it can also blow up in their face, if the extra money does not mean more wins.

Birmingham is bigger than Tuscaloosa. "in theory" they have more potential than Bama. In theory.

As I noted, UAB has a lot of fans in Legion Field that are disguised as empty seats. Makes for great television, huh?

How could you possibly know any of that. If the big 12added six teams the acc would do what they always have and backfill and on it would go though the be and cusa to the SBC.no way they would not react. The answer is that the SBC like the WAC did would find itself looking under every rock trying to survive. And like the WAC they may find app St. Holding out or gone to cusa alone with others they may simply run out of move ups willing to risk it.
Its already happened it could happen again.
Think of it six to the btwelve

Two to the Mwc
Two to cusa

That up to ten that could happen suddenly.

(01-20-2013 05:23 PM)GoApps70 Wrote:  

(01-20-2013 05:13 PM)GSU Eagles Wrote:  

(01-20-2013 05:11 PM)GoApps70 Wrote:  

(01-20-2013 05:04 PM)Buzz Lightyear Lite Wrote:  wow deep dooo dooo.......I would like to know who we will play next year before the friday before the game.......should be an interesting signing period for everyone.

Guess Troy will have to tell signees they can look forward to playing mystery teams in maybe a mystery conference.

Somehow you explain to the recruits that this is actually better for Troy. Not sure how though.

Kind of like "Let's Make A Deal" where you know what you have behind two curtains, but don't you really want that unknown mystery curtain # 3 instead.

In some ways.....and I mean a COMPLETE unknown way .......if the footprint is close we may have better crowds.....CUSA will have 7-15K at a lot of their ballgames.......maybe we have 20K or so and play a more broad variety of big teams......Our history is pretty good at landing guys in NFL and we are smack dab in the middle of Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Florida recruiting area (sort of) kids may like playing closer to where their parents can see them play.........the unknown is the crapper but even the Big Easyest means nothing with the new set up......I would not like to see ULL and Ark St. go away from playing in our conference....I know everyone needs to do what is best for them.....I really don't think ANY of them know what really is the best......It is possible if the Belt is here next year with ULL and Ark St......that again it will be better than CUSA......the fact is WHO KNOWS.....so for right now I hope coach Blakney hangs around to give us that stability factor and that we can play some D........and I will go to see whomever we play,......

(01-20-2013 08:31 PM)Turnberry79 Wrote:  Wait until the second contract cycle comes up after their ratings are poor and the networks/cable channels with the rights are showing games with tons of empty seats.........which makes for terrible TV. That will prove that the big market strategy was a loser and the second cycle media rights contracts will reflect that reality.. Many large metro markets have colleges where no one cares about their teams or games. Have you seen a UAB or Tulane game? That is what a large number of the CUSA games are going to look like.

You are making the assumption that additional money will not help ANY of the schools in CUSA, and the odds are not good that will happen.

That's part of the problem: Folks look at teams today and assume they will stay that way forever regardless of outside factors.

Money infused into a program can allow them to get better facilities (bring in better recruits) and hire better coaches. Both of which can help a team improve tremendously.

CUSA is counting on the above happening, not them staying the same.

Will it work for EVERY team? Probably not. But for some it will, and a new "CUSA elite" will come to the top.

(01-20-2013 08:30 PM)GSU Eagles Wrote:  Birmingham is bigger than Tuscaloosa. "in theory" they have more potential than Bama. In theory.

Well, clearly your one incident proves the entire model is flawed.

Do you honestly believe your reply to my statement is anything other than smoke blown up someone's ass?

(01-20-2013 08:45 PM)cleburneslim Wrote:  How could you possibly know any of that. If the big 12added six teams the acc would do what they always have and backfill and on it would go though the be and cusa to the SBC.no way they would not react. The answer is that the SBC like the WAC did would find itself looking under every rock trying to survive. And like the WAC they may find app St. Holding out or gone to cusa alone with others they may simply run out of move ups willing to risk it.
Its already happened it could happen again.
Think of it six to the btwelve

Two to the Mwc
Two to cusa

That up to ten that could happen suddenly.

The ACC wants and needs to stay as an AQ league. Backfilling with schools like ECU, Tulane, and Memphis does not help that. They are already going to be stuck with teams like Duke, Wake and Boston College who bring little to the league for a while.

(01-20-2013 09:21 PM)TheRevSWT Wrote:  

(01-20-2013 08:30 PM)GSU Eagles Wrote:  Birmingham is bigger than Tuscaloosa. "in theory" they have more potential than Bama. In theory.

Well, clearly your one incident proves the entire model is flawed.

Do you honestly believe your reply to my statement is anything other than smoke blown up someone's ass?

No, your point is the accepted theory today. I am just one in the category that fan support and years of tradition mean much more than potential based on city size.

(01-20-2013 09:19 PM)TheRevSWT Wrote:  

(01-20-2013 08:31 PM)Turnberry79 Wrote:  Wait until the second contract cycle comes up after their ratings are poor and the networks/cable channels with the rights are showing games with tons of empty seats.........which makes for terrible TV. That will prove that the big market strategy was a loser and the second cycle media rights contracts will reflect that reality.. Many large metro markets have colleges where no one cares about their teams or games. Have you seen a UAB or Tulane game? That is what a large number of the CUSA games are going to look like.

You are making the assumption that additional money will not help ANY of the schools in CUSA, and the odds are not good that will happen.

That's part of the problem: Folks look at teams today and assume they will stay that way forever regardless of outside factors.

Money infused into a program can allow them to get better facilities (bring in better recruits) and hire better coaches. Both of which can help a team improve tremendously.

CUSA is counting on the above happening, not them staying the same.

Will it work for EVERY team? Probably not. But for some it will, and a new "CUSA elite" will come to the top.

There are only so many dollars that will be allotted to the Group of Five and as time passes more and more will be targeted to the larger conferences which garner viewership which translates into revenue for the networks and cable channels. Networks have historically valued conferences on past performance. This contract cycle will be different in that there is a great deal more "guessing" than in the past due to the tremdous realignment. In short, they are working in the dark. The guessing game will be over with the next negotiation as then they have a wealth of hard data on which to value teams and conferences. Looking at past performance for the majority of the schools which will now call CUSA home shows that in venue attendance and viewership is anything but good. When a team has an in venue attendance of only 10,000 or so the corresponding viewership numbers are such that advertising cannot be sold at rates that are needed to make the production and delivery of the game profitable. Television networks and cable channels are not in the business to fund college athletic departments. They exist to make a profit. Thus, if the conference does not produce numbers that generate that profit their value to the network/channel falls as will rights fees they pay in the next contract cycle should they decide to pursue them. Again, it has been proven over the past five years that just because a school is located in a large media market does not mean it will draw large in venue attendance or television/cable viewership. I am not saying that all CUSA schools will suffer this fate.....but as a whole the schools in the conference do not have a history of being a successful revenue generator for a television/cable platform.

(01-20-2013 09:43 PM)Turnberry79 Wrote:  

(01-20-2013 09:19 PM)TheRevSWT Wrote:  

(01-20-2013 08:31 PM)Turnberry79 Wrote:  Wait until the second contract cycle comes up after their ratings are poor and the networks/cable channels with the rights are showing games with tons of empty seats.........which makes for terrible TV. That will prove that the big market strategy was a loser and the second cycle media rights contracts will reflect that reality.. Many large metro markets have colleges where no one cares about their teams or games. Have you seen a UAB or Tulane game? That is what a large number of the CUSA games are going to look like.

You are making the assumption that additional money will not help ANY of the schools in CUSA, and the odds are not good that will happen.

That's part of the problem: Folks look at teams today and assume they will stay that way forever regardless of outside factors.

Money infused into a program can allow them to get better facilities (bring in better recruits) and hire better coaches. Both of which can help a team improve tremendously.

CUSA is counting on the above happening, not them staying the same.

Will it work for EVERY team? Probably not. But for some it will, and a new "CUSA elite" will come to the top.

There are only so many dollars that will be allotted to the Group of Five and as time passes more and more will be targeted to the larger conferences which garner viewership which translates into revenue for the networks and cable channels. Networks have historically valued conferences on past performance. This contract cycle will be different in that there is a great deal more "guessing" than in the past due to the tremdous realignment. In short, they are working in the dark. The guessing game will be over with the next negotiation as then they have a wealth of hard data on which to value teams and conferences. Looking at past performance for the majority of the schools which will now call CUSA home shows that in venue attendance and viewership is anything but good. When a team has an in venue attendance of only 10,000 or so the corresponding viewership numbers are such that advertising cannot be sold at rates that are needed to make the production and delivery of the game profitable. Television networks and cable channels are not in the business to fund college athletic departments. They exist to make a profit. Thus, if the conference does not produce numbers that generate that profit their value to the network/channel falls as will rights fees they pay in the next contract cycle should they decide to pursue them. Again, it has been proven over the past five years that just because a school is located in a large media market does not mean it will draw large in venue attendance or television/cable viewership. I am not saying that all CUSA schools will suffer this fate.....but as a whole the schools in the conference do not have a history of being a successful revenue generator for a television/cable platform.

The same can be said about FCS -> FBS, schools struggle making the transition. When your team struggles, you lose fans in the stands. Why wouldn't the networks lower right fees in a case like this?

Or are you guys so good that you would dominate the sun belt and your FBS OOCs right out the gate?

(01-20-2013 09:43 PM)Turnberry79 Wrote:  There are only so many dollars that will be allotted to the Group of Five and as time passes more and more will be targeted to the larger conferences which garner viewership which translates into revenue for the networks and cable channels. Networks have historically valued conferences on past performance. This contract cycle will be different in that there is a great deal more "guessing" than in the past due to the tremdous realignment. In short, they are working in the dark. The guessing game will be over with the next negotiation as then they have a wealth of hard data on which to value teams and conferences. Looking at past performance for the majority of the schools which will now call CUSA home shows that in venue attendance and viewership is anything but good. When a team has an in venue attendance of only 10,000 or so the corresponding viewership numbers are such that advertising cannot be sold at rates that are needed to make the production and delivery of the game profitable. Television networks and cable channels are not in the business to fund college athletic departments. They exist to make a profit. Thus, if the conference does not produce numbers that generate that profit their value to the network/channel falls as will rights fees they pay in the next contract cycle should they decide to pursue them. Again, it has been proven over the past five years that just because a school is located in a large media market does not mean it will draw large in venue attendance or television/cable viewership. I am not saying that all CUSA schools will suffer this fate.....but as a whole the schools in the conference do not have a history of being a successful revenue generator for a television/cable platform.

Again, you make the mistake that people are saying that "big markets means they will be successful." No one is arguing that.

What I am saying is that by grabbing the larger markets, they can pitch the TV contract as having those towns in a large enough viewership that they can improve the payout.

That additional revenue would then be able to be given back to the school to improve facilities and hire better coaches, setting them up for success.

Not all will spend it wisely. Some will hire a disgraced coach with motorcycle accidents on their resume (please don't hate, I was just joking), while others will hire snake oil salesmen. But they are setting up their teams for success.

I am sorry. I do not follow what you are saying. Are you talking about the Sun Belt or are you talking about the school that I graduated from that might be an addition to the Sun Belt.....or maybe not? I am not here to be a shill for my school. I am making a statement of fact. I am an attorney who practices media law and has been involved in rights issues for a number of years. I think anyone that understands college sports understands that schools that are transitioning from one level to the next have a period where they have to get up to speed with those that have been competing at the higher level. I have made no statement whatsoever, nor do I believe that my alma mater would dominate the Sun Belt nor any of the out of conference opponents we may play during transition. I am dealing in a world of facts, not bias bluster based on where I might have gone to school. Many of the people I know, and who are very knowledgable in the broadcast business, agree with me when I say that we are entering a new era when it comes to media rights where the valuation of rights will be tied more than ever to how well a conference can generate viewership as well as create an exciting game experience for television, which includes having fans in the stands. Fact is the majority of the schools in your new conference do not have a stellar in venue attendance track record. I base my statements on that.

(01-20-2013 10:23 PM)TheRevSWT Wrote:  

(01-20-2013 09:43 PM)Turnberry79 Wrote:  There are only so many dollars that will be allotted to the Group of Five and as time passes more and more will be targeted to the larger conferences which garner viewership which translates into revenue for the networks and cable channels. Networks have historically valued conferences on past performance. This contract cycle will be different in that there is a great deal more "guessing" than in the past due to the tremdous realignment. In short, they are working in the dark. The guessing game will be over with the next negotiation as then they have a wealth of hard data on which to value teams and conferences. Looking at past performance for the majority of the schools which will now call CUSA home shows that in venue attendance and viewership is anything but good. When a team has an in venue attendance of only 10,000 or so the corresponding viewership numbers are such that advertising cannot be sold at rates that are needed to make the production and delivery of the game profitable. Television networks and cable channels are not in the business to fund college athletic departments. They exist to make a profit. Thus, if the conference does not produce numbers that generate that profit their value to the network/channel falls as will rights fees they pay in the next contract cycle should they decide to pursue them. Again, it has been proven over the past five years that just because a school is located in a large media market does not mean it will draw large in venue attendance or television/cable viewership. I am not saying that all CUSA schools will suffer this fate.....but as a whole the schools in the conference do not have a history of being a successful revenue generator for a television/cable platform.

Again, you make the mistake that people are saying that "big markets means they will be successful." No one is arguing that.

What I am saying is that by grabbing the larger markets, they can pitch the TV contract as having those towns in a large enough viewership that they can improve the payout.

That additional revenue would then be able to be given back to the school to improve facilities and hire better coaches, setting them up for success.

Not all will spend it wisely. Some will hire a disgraced coach with motorcycle accidents on their resume (please don't hate, I was just joking), while others will hire snake oil salesmen. But they are setting up their teams for success.

I fully understand what you are saying........but the fact remains that on the second cycle of contract negotiation you have to show that you have earned the rights fees you were paid in the first contract. If that is not done then the rights fee in a new contract will reflect that.

Success is a combination of a number of factors and money is just one of them........one that by itself does not insure success. There are very many schools in the AQ conferences that have tremendous revenue but still are not successful.

(01-20-2013 10:30 PM)Turnberry79 Wrote:  I fully understand what you are saying........but the fact remains that on the second cycle of contract negotiation you have to show that you have earned the rights fees you were paid in the first contract. If that is not done then the rights fee in a new contract will reflect that.

Success is a combination of a number of factors and money is just one of them........one that by itself does not insure success. There are very many schools in the AQ conferences that have tremendous revenue but still are not successful.

You're 100% correct that success is a combination of things... But a big one is money. And having more of it gives you a leg up.

(01-20-2013 09:55 PM)FIU4Ever Wrote:  

(01-20-2013 09:43 PM)Turnberry79 Wrote:  

(01-20-2013 09:19 PM)TheRevSWT Wrote:  

(01-20-2013 08:31 PM)Turnberry79 Wrote:  Wait until the second contract cycle comes up after their ratings are poor and the networks/cable channels with the rights are showing games with tons of empty seats.........which makes for terrible TV. That will prove that the big market strategy was a loser and the second cycle media rights contracts will reflect that reality.. Many large metro markets have colleges where no one cares about their teams or games. Have you seen a UAB or Tulane game? That is what a large number of the CUSA games are going to look like.

You are making the assumption that additional money will not help ANY of the schools in CUSA, and the odds are not good that will happen.

That's part of the problem: Folks look at teams today and assume they will stay that way forever regardless of outside factors.

Money infused into a program can allow them to get better facilities (bring in better recruits) and hire better coaches. Both of which can help a team improve tremendously.

CUSA is counting on the above happening, not them staying the same.

Will it work for EVERY team? Probably not. But for some it will, and a new "CUSA elite" will come to the top.

There are only so many dollars that will be allotted to the Group of Five and as time passes more and more will be targeted to the larger conferences which garner viewership which translates into revenue for the networks and cable channels. Networks have historically valued conferences on past performance. This contract cycle will be different in that there is a great deal more "guessing" than in the past due to the tremdous realignment. In short, they are working in the dark. The guessing game will be over with the next negotiation as then they have a wealth of hard data on which to value teams and conferences. Looking at past performance for the majority of the schools which will now call CUSA home shows that in venue attendance and viewership is anything but good. When a team has an in venue attendance of only 10,000 or so the corresponding viewership numbers are such that advertising cannot be sold at rates that are needed to make the production and delivery of the game profitable. Television networks and cable channels are not in the business to fund college athletic departments. They exist to make a profit. Thus, if the conference does not produce numbers that generate that profit their value to the network/channel falls as will rights fees they pay in the next contract cycle should they decide to pursue them. Again, it has been proven over the past five years that just because a school is located in a large media market does not mean it will draw large in venue attendance or television/cable viewership. I am not saying that all CUSA schools will suffer this fate.....but as a whole the schools in the conference do not have a history of being a successful revenue generator for a television/cable platform.

The same can be said about FCS -> FBS, schools struggle making the transition. When your team struggles, you lose fans in the stands. Why wouldn't the networks lower right fees in a case like this?

Or are you guys so good that you would dominate the sun belt and your FBS OOCs right out the gate?

Of course. Our administration delayed a replacement a year ago that should have been done years ago with a "legendary" coach, but now we are back on the straight and narrow. Will never get me to admit that we will ever lose to anyone by the way.

(01-20-2013 08:12 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(01-20-2013 07:58 PM)cleburneslim Wrote:  What if?


The mountain west added two
Cusa went to 16
And the big twelve went to 16.


All of which is possible and could happen quickly whether now or June or next year.

What would the SBC look like then and would some fcs school hold out for a cusa or be invite?

Not one single FCS school would hold out for a CUSA invite...that would be foolish to the extreme.

Big 12's 16 would poach from the ACC (SEC wont move) ACC would find itself eaten alive in that likely scenario, and will choose to play with 10 or so teams rather than add teams like Memphis and ECU to get to 12.

An FCS school turning down a Sun Belt invitation and hoping for a C-USA invitation has already happened. Thought you knew that.

Will happen again if the b12 moved suddenly before an SBC move. Same thing happened to the WAC. Too much too fast.

(01-21-2013 08:36 PM)cleburneslim Wrote:  Will happen again if the b12 moved suddenly before an SBC move. Same thing happened to the WAC. Too much too fast.

Cajuns getting a market restructure---As our living alumni approaches 100K we can see various groups really taking off in areas from Houston, lake Charles, Alexandria, Baton Rouge, Houma Morgan City, and as evidenced by the recent NO bowl the crescent City----The LC, Alex, BR, Houma/MC areas are within an hour drive and ALL are in very good economic areas (maybe not Alex)---With stadium expansion and winning to go with Lafayette a great era awaits the Cajuns!!! Location with 2 interstates and easy air travel out of Dallas, Houston, and Atlanta we seem to be an logical choice for CUSA!!! BTW look for a huge budget report increase!!! Ticket sales and seats, t-gating revenue, and RCAF membership---our time has come!!!

(01-22-2013 01:30 AM)exflash Wrote:  

(01-21-2013 08:36 PM)cleburneslim Wrote:  Will happen again if the b12 moved suddenly before an SBC move. Same thing happened to the WAC. Too much too fast.

Cajuns getting a market restructure---As our living alumni approaches 100K we can see various groups really taking off in areas from Houston, lake Charles, Alexandria, Baton Rouge, Houma Morgan City, and as evidenced by the recent NO bowl the crescent City----The LC, Alex, BR, Houma/MC areas are within an hour drive and ALL are in very good economic areas (maybe not Alex)---With stadium expansion and winning to go with Lafayette a great era awaits the Cajuns!!! Location with 2 interstates and easy air travel out of Dallas, Houston, and Atlanta we seem to be an logical choice for CUSA!!! BTW look for a huge budget report increase!!! Ticket sales and seats, t-gating revenue, and RCAF membership---our time has come!!!

With the choices CUSA will have, you have to think that ULL will be one of the favorites when it comes time for another round of CUSA expansion. If ULL is passed over again, I will be convinced that there is something that is preventing you guys from getting into CUSA that none of us know about.