(04-11-2013 08:30 AM)GoAppsGo92 Wrote:  And, more to the point of this whole exercise: JMU brings what exactly to the picture that would allow CUSA to take a cut in their revenue? You are asking CUSA to reduce the distribution by $170k to $300k per team, per year (and that gap will go up as playoff money grows) for JMU to do what for the conference?

Guys, listen: IF CUSA expands to 16, it is a fact that it will further reduce the distribution per school. So, it has to be a move that strengthens the conference and creates some travel advantages that would more than overcome that gap. The only logical step would be to bring two FBS schools in that would create two distinct divisions for CUSA. As much as you want them to look East, they would have to look West.

I've been on point all along. The allocation difference of this money from conference size is pretty small compared to the other factors involved. For a case in point look at the MAC. Right now they are sitting at 13 teams and supposedly waiting on a decision from UMASS. If the MAC schools thought this playoff slice was such a big deal then they would be gone already. But the MAC realizes that the benefits of having UMASS as a full sports member (despite being a geographic outlier) strengthens the conference in many other ways. If UMASS goes MAC for everything, then they'll most likely add that 14th member.

As for you other comments about what JMU has to offer, well, supposedly we are the MAC's first option at that 14th spot, so apparently they think we have something to offer (and we'd be another geographic outlier for the conference).

I think JMU could spin a compelling story for CUSA membership as well if they look to expand. Geographically we'd fit nicely in with Marshall, ODU, WKU, UNCC, & MtSU. Potentially large travel cost savings depending on how the divisions are aligned. Harrisonburg itself isn't a particularly large market, but we do have a large (and growing) alumni base in DC & Richmond.

(04-11-2013 10:04 AM)DooX Wrote:  

(04-11-2013 08:30 AM)GoAppsGo92 Wrote:  

I've been on point all along. The allocation difference of this money from conference size is pretty small compared to the other factors involved. For a case in point look at the MAC. Right now they are sitting at 13 teams and supposedly waiting on a decision from UMASS. If the MAC schools thought this playoff slice was such a big deal then they would be gone already. But the MAC realizes that the benefits of having UMASS as a full sports member (despite being a geographic outlier) strengthens the conference in many other ways. If UMASS goes MAC for everything, then they'll most likely add that 14th member.

As for you other comments about what JMU has to offer, well, supposedly we are the MAC's first option at that 14th spot, so apparently they think we have something to offer (and we'd be another geographic outlier for the conference).

Here is the thing, in light of recent news about the revenue share for the G5, the only way it will make sense to add more teams and dilute the football revenue is if: 1.) it is a game changer in football meaning enough to swing the conference ahead of another to generate a higher payout from the performance cut of the distribution or 2.) there is significant strength in other sports and specifically mens hoops which could help the league secure another tourney bid and more earning credits to offset the revenue loss for the football add. 3.) expense reduction can be realized through travel synergies (not as relevant in MAC as footprint is already tight and any adds would require more travel outside of the current footprint for most members).

UMass definitely fits the above for the MAC, beyond them though I am not sure if there is a clear cut 14. Markets might still be a small factor but the TV money seems to have run out on that end. Although I do anticipate the MAC will increase its TV payout during its next contract so they may try to grab a market for negotiating purposes if there isn't another clear team out there that fits the other criteria.

And as a side bar and just my opinion but I think when JMU was being thrown out in the MAC discussion a while back it was with ODU and I really think ODU was the preferred choice for the hoops and market. Seems they have been eyeing teams that bring hoops support over football with recent expansion candidates (Temple, UMass, WKU, ODU).

I think our Opportunity to move up has passed.. we had our chance, decided not to, now everyone has left.. oh well.

(04-11-2013 10:37 AM)HuskieTap22 Wrote:  

(04-11-2013 10:04 AM)DooX Wrote:  

(04-11-2013 08:30 AM)GoAppsGo92 Wrote:  

I've been on point all along. The allocation difference of this money from conference size is pretty small compared to the other factors involved. For a case in point look at the MAC. Right now they are sitting at 13 teams and supposedly waiting on a decision from UMASS. If the MAC schools thought this playoff slice was such a big deal then they would be gone already. But the MAC realizes that the benefits of having UMASS as a full sports member (despite being a geographic outlier) strengthens the conference in many other ways. If UMASS goes MAC for everything, then they'll most likely add that 14th member.

As for you other comments about what JMU has to offer, well, supposedly we are the MAC's first option at that 14th spot, so apparently they think we have something to offer (and we'd be another geographic outlier for the conference).

Here is the thing, in light of recent news about the revenue share for the G5, the only way it will make sense to add more teams and dilute the football revenue is if: 1.) it is a game changer in football meaning enough to swing the conference ahead of another to generate a higher payout from the performance cut of the distribution or 2.) there is significant strength in other sports and specifically mens hoops which could help the league secure another tourney bid and more earning credits to offset the revenue loss for the football add. 3.) expense reduction can be realized through travel synergies (not as relevant in MAC as footprint is already tight and any adds would require more travel outside of the current footprint for most members).

UMass definitely fits the above for the MAC, beyond them though I am not sure if there is a clear cut 14. Markets might still be a small factor but the TV money seems to have run out on that end. Although I do anticipate the MAC will increase its TV payout during its next contract so they may try to grab a market for negotiating purposes if there isn't another clear team out there that fits the other criteria.

And as a side bar and just my opinion but I think when JMU was being thrown out in the MAC discussion a while back it was with ODU and I really think ODU was the preferred choice for the hoops and market. Seems they have been eyeing teams that bring hoops support over football with recent expansion candidates (Temple, UMass, WKU, ODU).

Ding! Ding! Ding!

(04-11-2013 10:37 AM)HuskieTap22 Wrote:  

(04-11-2013 10:04 AM)DooX Wrote:  

(04-11-2013 08:30 AM)GoAppsGo92 Wrote:  

I've been on point all along. The allocation difference of this money from conference size is pretty small compared to the other factors involved. For a case in point look at the MAC. Right now they are sitting at 13 teams and supposedly waiting on a decision from UMASS. If the MAC schools thought this playoff slice was such a big deal then they would be gone already. But the MAC realizes that the benefits of having UMASS as a full sports member (despite being a geographic outlier) strengthens the conference in many other ways. If UMASS goes MAC for everything, then they'll most likely add that 14th member.

As for you other comments about what JMU has to offer, well, supposedly we are the MAC's first option at that 14th spot, so apparently they think we have something to offer (and we'd be another geographic outlier for the conference).

Here is the thing, in light of recent news about the revenue share for the G5, the only way it will make sense to add more teams and dilute the football revenue is if: 1.) it is a game changer in football meaning enough to swing the conference ahead of another to generate a higher payout from the performance cut of the distribution or 2.) there is significant strength in other sports and specifically mens hoops which could help the league secure another tourney bid and more earning credits to offset the revenue loss for the football add. 3.) expense reduction can be realized through travel synergies (not as relevant in MAC as footprint is already tight and any adds would require more travel outside of the current footprint for most members).

UMass definitely fits the above for the MAC, beyond them though I am not sure if there is a clear cut 14. Markets might still be a small factor but the TV money seems to have run out on that end. Although I do anticipate the MAC will increase its TV payout during its next contract so they may try to grab a market for negotiating purposes if there isn't another clear team out there that fits the other criteria.

And as a side bar and just my opinion but I think when JMU was being thrown out in the MAC discussion a while back it was with ODU and I really think ODU was the preferred choice for the hoops and market. Seems they have been eyeing teams that bring hoops support over football with recent expansion candidates (Temple, UMass, WKU, ODU).

I'm pretty sure ODU hoops is pretty much in shambles right now.

(04-11-2013 10:37 AM)HuskieTap22 Wrote:  

(04-11-2013 10:04 AM)DooX Wrote:  [quote='GoAppsGo92' pid='9222794' dateline='1365687001']

Here is the thing, in light of recent news about the revenue share for the G5, the only way it will make sense to add more teams and dilute the football revenue is if: 1.) it is a game changer in football meaning enough to swing the conference ahead of another to generate a higher payout from the performance cut of the distribution or 2.) there is significant strength in other sports and specifically mens hoops which could help the league secure another tourney bid and more earning credits to offset the revenue loss for the football add. 3.) expense reduction can be realized through travel synergies (not as relevant in MAC as footprint is already tight and any adds would require more travel outside of the current footprint for most members).

it is a game changer.

because if things stand as they are, CUSA and the Sun Belt are two competing conferences in heavily overlapped territory. And the gap between the two in football is not that great, if there even is a gap.

A move by CUSA to grab JMU (before the Sun Belt does) and Arkansas State would effectively swing the pendulum heavily in favor of CUSA as there are no viable candidates for the Sun Belt to replace those two to get to 12.

that puts CUSA as the 2nd best conference in the Southeast behind the SEC without dispute.

it's the same reason the ACC wanted to destroy the Big East. The overlapping geographically just wasn't big enough for the both of them.

(04-11-2013 01:36 PM)Duke Dawg Wrote:  

(04-11-2013 10:37 AM)HuskieTap22 Wrote:  

(04-11-2013 10:04 AM)DooX Wrote:  [quote='GoAppsGo92' pid='9222794' dateline='1365687001']

it is a game changer.

because if things stand as they are, CUSA and the Sun Belt are two competing conferences in heavily overlapped territory. And the gap between the two in football is not that great, if there even is a gap.

A move by CUSA to grab JMU (before the Sun Belt does) and Arkansas State would effectively swing the pendulum heavily in favor of CUSA as there are no viable candidates for the Sun Belt to replace those two to get to 12.

that puts CUSA as the 2nd best conference in the Southeast behind the SEC without dispute.

it's the same reason the ACC wanted to destroy the Big East. The overlapping geographically just wasn't big enough for the both of them.

I would somewhat agree that if JMU went to CUSA then maybe it would swing the balance but under that scenario as soon as you guys join then its very possible the Sun Belt pulls the trigger on Liberty and right back to more market overlap. I think there is concern by any league that takes JMU that Liberty will be right behind in a competing league thus creating instant market overlap. You don't have to sell me on why JMU is the much better add but the Sun Belt is teetering on the verge of desperation and Liberty is about in the same boat with trying to move up so they really are a perfect match and JMU seems to have the poison pill tied to it for CUSA and the MAC.

(04-11-2013 10:37 AM)HuskieTap22 Wrote:  Here is the thing, in light of recent news about the revenue share for the G5, the only way it will make sense to add more teams and dilute the football revenue is if: 1.) it is a game changer in football meaning enough to swing the conference ahead of another to generate a higher payout from the performance cut of the distribution or 2.) there is significant strength in other sports and specifically mens hoops which could help the league secure another tourney bid and more earning credits to offset the revenue loss for the football add. 3.) expense reduction can be realized through travel synergies (not as relevant in MAC as footprint is already tight and any adds would require more travel outside of the current footprint for most members).

UMass definitely fits the above for the MAC, beyond them though I am not sure if there is a clear cut 14. Markets might still be a small factor but the TV money seems to have run out on that end. Although I do anticipate the MAC will increase its TV payout during its next contract so they may try to grab a market for negotiating purposes if there isn't another clear team out there that fits the other criteria.

This revenue sharing news might have been recently made public, but I'd have a hard time believing that it hasn't been talked about between the conferences for a while now. Nevertheless, the CUSA commissioner was quoted as recently as Monday stating they are considering 16 schools.

I mostly agree with what you're saying about cost/benefits of expansion. UMASS made a compelling case. Though you may not see it, I think JMU and some other FCS schools could make a compelling case as well. Where I disagree is where the difference in revenue sharing ranks in the overall scheme of things. The sum of the costs associated with travel, TV Markets, competitive balance, & who knows what else will overwhelm the cost of the slice.

Besides, I'm sure it could be a negotiable point if a school is really interested in moving up. A school could agree to forgo some or all of that revenue for a period of time.

(04-11-2013 02:32 PM)DooX Wrote:  

(04-11-2013 10:37 AM)HuskieTap22 Wrote:  Here is the thing, in light of recent news about the revenue share for the G5, the only way it will make sense to add more teams and dilute the football revenue is if: 1.) it is a game changer in football meaning enough to swing the conference ahead of another to generate a higher payout from the performance cut of the distribution or 2.) there is significant strength in other sports and specifically mens hoops which could help the league secure another tourney bid and more earning credits to offset the revenue loss for the football add. 3.) expense reduction can be realized through travel synergies (not as relevant in MAC as footprint is already tight and any adds would require more travel outside of the current footprint for most members).

UMass definitely fits the above for the MAC, beyond them though I am not sure if there is a clear cut 14. Markets might still be a small factor but the TV money seems to have run out on that end. Although I do anticipate the MAC will increase its TV payout during its next contract so they may try to grab a market for negotiating purposes if there isn't another clear team out there that fits the other criteria.

This revenue sharing news might have been recently made public, but I'd have a hard time believing that it hasn't been talked about between the conferences for a while now. Nevertheless, the CUSA commissioner was quoted as recently as Monday stating they are considering 16 schools.

I mostly agree with what you're saying about cost/benefits of expansion. UMASS made a compelling case. Though you may not see it, I think JMU and some other FCS schools could make a compelling case as well. Where I disagree is where the difference in revenue sharing ranks in the overall scheme of things. The sum of the costs associated with travel, TV Markets, competitive balance, & who knows what else will overwhelm the cost of the slice.

Besides, I'm sure it could be a negotiable point if a school is really interested in moving up. A school could agree to forgo some or all of that revenue for a period of time.

An interesting tidbit in my mind is that JMU could theoretically deliver the DC market. JMU got tons of media coverage in the DC area with their recent NCAA tourny run as a 16 seed no less.

A successful JMU team in football (and bball) will get viewers and interest from both the DC and Richmond markets. Not sure if that's worth anything.

Quote:An interesting tidbit in my mind is that JMU could theoretically deliver the DC market. JMU got tons of media coverage in the DC area with their recent NCAA tourny run as a 16 seed no less.

A successful JMU team in football (and bball) will get viewers and interest from both the DC and Richmond markets. Not sure if that's worth anything.

that is worth a lot, and you had better believe we're selling that.

(04-11-2013 02:37 PM)All Dukes_All Day Wrote:  

(04-11-2013 02:32 PM)DooX Wrote:  

(04-11-2013 10:37 AM)HuskieTap22 Wrote:  

An interesting tidbit in my mind is that JMU could theoretically deliver the DC market. JMU got tons of media coverage in the DC area with their recent NCAA tourny run as a 16 seed no less.

A successful JMU team in football (and bball) will get viewers and interest from both the DC and Richmond markets. Not sure if that's worth anything.

At least from the MAC perspective, I think if JMU had a better basketball program it would probably be a much easier decision to add them as #14. The main hesitation on the UMass side is concern over a drop in hoops competition from the A-10 for what has historically been a hoops first programs. If they did come all in #13 then I assume they would have a big say in a potential #14 and depending on who is left on the board hoops strength would be a major factor. I definitely think as a university you guys are better than the current Sun Belt mix.

(04-11-2013 02:48 PM)HuskieTap22 Wrote:  

(04-11-2013 02:37 PM)All Dukes_All Day Wrote:  

(04-11-2013 02:32 PM)DooX Wrote:  

(04-11-2013 10:37 AM)HuskieTap22 Wrote:  

An interesting tidbit in my mind is that JMU could theoretically deliver the DC market. JMU got tons of media coverage in the DC area with their recent NCAA tourny run as a 16 seed no less.

A successful JMU team in football (and bball) will get viewers and interest from both the DC and Richmond markets. Not sure if that's worth anything.

At least from the MAC perspective, I think if JMU had a better basketball program it would probably be a much easier decision to add them as #14. The main hesitation on the UMass side is concern over a drop in hoops competition from the A-10 for what has historically been a hoops first programs. If they did come all in #13 then I assume they would have a big say in a potential #14 and depending on who is left on the board hoops strength would be a major factor. I definitely think as a university you guys are better than the current Sun Belt mix.

Do you think making the NCAA tourny this year and getting a convincing win in the play-in game is worth anything? Curious as to the thoughts of others at how important that was.

Just because CUSA is considering 16 teams doesn't mean that they'll always be at that number. I would think that the move to 16 is more protective in nature, so that they won't need to scramble in the future if 1 or 2 members leave for another conference.

(04-11-2013 02:56 PM)All Dukes_All Day Wrote:  

(04-11-2013 02:48 PM)HuskieTap22 Wrote:  

(04-11-2013 02:37 PM)All Dukes_All Day Wrote:  

(04-11-2013 02:32 PM)DooX Wrote:  

(04-11-2013 10:37 AM)HuskieTap22 Wrote:  

Do you think making the NCAA tourny this year and getting a convincing win in the play-in game is worth anything? Curious as to the thoughts of others at how important that was.

I think it puts you guys on the hoops radar. I am not totally up with how the tourney payouts work for the play-in but I assume you get a credit for a win just like every other round so thats a plus. The key big picture I think though is building on this year and putting together string of multiple appearances. Say what you want about ODU but they did have a nice run of multiple good season in the 2000s in what was a much stronger CAA. With Mason moving on to the A-10 JMU needs to step up as the hoops team in the CAA as nationally now the CAA is viewed as a weaker league. Hence why the league champ ended up in the play-in which years ago would not have happened.

(04-11-2013 03:31 PM)HuskieTap22 Wrote:  

(04-11-2013 02:56 PM)All Dukes_All Day Wrote:  

(04-11-2013 02:48 PM)HuskieTap22 Wrote:  

(04-11-2013 02:37 PM)All Dukes_All Day Wrote:  

(04-11-2013 02:32 PM)DooX Wrote:  

Do you think making the NCAA tourny this year and getting a convincing win in the play-in game is worth anything? Curious as to the thoughts of others at how important that was.

I think it puts you guys on the hoops radar. I am not totally up with how the tourney payouts work for the play-in but I assume you get a credit for a win just like every other round so thats a plus. The key big picture I think though is building on this year and putting together string of multiple appearances. Say what you want about ODU but they did have a nice run of multiple good season in the 2000s in what was a much stronger CAA. With Mason moving on to the A-10 JMU needs to step up as the hoops team in the CAA as nationally now the CAA is viewed as a weaker league. Hence why the league champ ended up in the play-in which years ago would not have happened.

Yup...total down year for the CAA. Two years ago the conference finished with 6 top 100 RPI teams. Three of those teams are now gone.