Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
sounds like Idaho's AD was WRONG
Author Message
stever20 Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 46,227
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation: 725
I Root For: Sports
Location:
Post: #1
sounds like Idaho's AD was WRONG
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...evenue-cap

Conference USA, with 14 members, would split the same $12 million as the Sun Belt, Mountain West and AAC, each with 12 members by 2015. (The MAC is at 13 members.) Two sources said that part of the decision was based on conference realignment. The equal split, in theory, deters conferences from raiding each other because that distribution number isn't going to grow with more teams.

So for instance- if CUSA goes up to 16 by taking Arkansas St and Louisiana- they would be splitting 12 million by 16 teams.

Also-

Pool A of the Group of Five distribution includes $60 million ($12 million multiplied by five conferences.)

• Pool B will be divided based on a ranking system of the five conferences. CBSSports.com reported in January that the number to be split would be $20 million. The highest ranked conference will get $7 million. The lowest ranked conference would get an extra $1.5 million. That $20 million figure likely will grow, according to a source, because the $86.5 million is a four-year rolling average. Revenue is expected to escalate in the future.

• That would leave approximately $6 million left over for Pool C. Whatever that number ends up being, it will stay fixed over the four-year period and accounts for the amount earned by the Group of Five participant in a playoff bowl. The highest ranked team from those 63 schools is guaranteed a spot in one of the six playoff bowls.
04-10-2013 01:09 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


CommuterBob Offline
Head Tailgater
*

Posts: 5,840
Joined: Feb 2012
Reputation: 173
I Root For: UCF, Ohio State
Location:
Post: #2
RE: sounds like Idaho's AD was WRONG
You missed this part:

Quote:What's new is the $12 million base that essentially caps per-school distribution at $1 million per year. Any Group of Five conference with fewer than 12 members would get only $1 million per school. (10 schools = $10 million, 11 schools = $11 million, etc.)
04-10-2013 01:18 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BeliefBlazer Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 13,806
Joined: Jun 2004
Reputation: 295
I Root For: UAB
Location: Portal, GA

DonatorsDonators
Post: #3
RE: sounds like Idaho's AD was WRONG
Sounds like a compromise between the side that wanted paid by conference and the side that wanted payout to be per team.
04-10-2013 01:19 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
HuskieTap22 Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,214
Joined: Sep 2004
Reputation: 40
I Root For: NIU / DePaul
Location:
Post: #4
RE: sounds like Idaho's AD was WRONG
So is this why the Sun Belt is so adamant on getting to 12 teams? To maximize the payout?
04-10-2013 01:20 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BullsFanInTX Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,485
Joined: May 2008
Reputation: 338
I Root For: USF
Location:
Post: #5
RE: sounds like Idaho's AD was WRONG
Sounds like there would be very little incentive for CUSA to go to 16 teams. It would simply dilute their pie further.
04-10-2013 01:24 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
stever20 Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 46,227
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation: 725
I Root For: Sports
Location:
Post: #6
RE: sounds like Idaho's AD was WRONG
What he said though was:
“That has generated a significant amount of more revenue,” Spear said. “Granted, the five BCS conferences and Notre Dame get the majority of that, but just being in an FBS conference now, it almost seems at a minimum, you’re going to receive about $1 million in conference revenue, and that’s a lot more significant than it ever was when we were a member of the WAC, under the old agreement. That was the WAC’s downfall — we couldn’t attract membership because there just wasn’t enough conference revenue.”

That's just not the case. If CUSA goes to 16 teams, they would get 750k per school and not get 4 million dollars more(which is how he was making it seem).
04-10-2013 01:24 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


stever20 Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 46,227
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation: 725
I Root For: Sports
Location:
Post: #7
RE: sounds like Idaho's AD was WRONG
(04-10-2013 01:20 PM)HuskieTap22 Wrote:  So is this why the Sun Belt is so adamant on getting to 12 teams? To maximize the payout?

makes no sense in a lot of ways- no difference per team payout at 10 vs 12.
04-10-2013 01:24 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
blunderbuss Offline
Banned

Posts: 19,649
Joined: Apr 2011
I Root For: ECU & the CSA
Location: Buzz City, NC
Post: #8
RE: sounds like Idaho's AD was WRONG
(04-10-2013 01:20 PM)HuskieTap22 Wrote:  So is this why the Sun Belt is so adamant on getting to 12 teams? To maximize the payout?

It's capped at $1mm per Go5 school. It doesn't matter at all besides insulation from further raids.
04-10-2013 01:26 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
HP-TBDPITL Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,495
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 82
I Root For: College Sports
Location:
Post: #9
RE: sounds like Idaho's AD was WRONG
(04-10-2013 01:20 PM)HuskieTap22 Wrote:  So is this why the Sun Belt is so adamant on getting to 12 teams? To maximize the payout?

Seems it gave them a reason to add the two FB only members...which is probably a good thing overall.

At this point adding App State and Ga Southern hasn't really diluted the FBS ...and most of the other adds to FBS (Ga State, UTSA, USA, Texas State, ODU and Charlotte) appear to serious about being competitive from a monetary standpoint. But how many new schools can be added without serious dilution of the quality of programs at the lower levels. That will be at least 8 new schools added in less than a five year period.
04-10-2013 01:26 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
blunderbuss Offline
Banned

Posts: 19,649
Joined: Apr 2011
I Root For: ECU & the CSA
Location: Buzz City, NC
Post: #10
RE: sounds like Idaho's AD was WRONG
(04-10-2013 01:09 PM)stever20 Wrote:  Also-

Pool A of the Group of Five distribution includes $60 million ($12 million multiplied by five conferences.)

• Pool B will be divided based on a ranking system of the five conferences. CBSSports.com reported in January that the number to be split would be $20 million. The highest ranked conference will get $7 million. The lowest ranked conference would get an extra $1.5 million. That $20 million figure likely will grow, according to a source, because the $86.5 million is a four-year rolling average. Revenue is expected to escalate in the future.

• That would leave approximately $6 million left over for Pool C. Whatever that number ends up being, it will stay fixed over the four-year period and accounts for the amount earned by the Group of Five participant in a playoff bowl. The highest ranked team from those 63 schools is guaranteed a spot in one of the six playoff bowls.

So how are they going to rank the conferences? Will it be based on highest ranked school per league or based on average ranking of the leagues?
04-10-2013 01:29 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
HuskieTap22 Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,214
Joined: Sep 2004
Reputation: 40
I Root For: NIU / DePaul
Location:
Post: #11
RE: sounds like Idaho's AD was WRONG
(04-10-2013 01:26 PM)HP-TBDPITL Wrote:  
(04-10-2013 01:20 PM)HuskieTap22 Wrote:  So is this why the Sun Belt is so adamant on getting to 12 teams? To maximize the payout?

Seems it gave them a reason to add the two FB only members...which is probably a good thing overall.

At this point adding App State and Ga Southern hasn't really diluted the FBS ...and most of the other adds to FBS (Ga State, UTSA, USA, Texas State, ODU and Charlotte) appear to serious about being competitive from a monetary standpoint. But how many new schools can be added without serious dilution of the quality of programs at the lower levels. That will be at least 8 new schools added in less than a five year period.

That's where I was going. $1 million per team regardless of numbers. Why dilute with marginal just to get to 12 and have a championship game when no one has even heard of half the teams in your league.
04-10-2013 01:30 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


stever20 Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 46,227
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation: 725
I Root For: Sports
Location:
Post: #12
RE: sounds like Idaho's AD was WRONG
(04-10-2013 01:26 PM)HP-TBDPITL Wrote:  
(04-10-2013 01:20 PM)HuskieTap22 Wrote:  So is this why the Sun Belt is so adamant on getting to 12 teams? To maximize the payout?

Seems it gave them a reason to add the two FB only members...which is probably a good thing overall.

At this point adding App State and Ga Southern hasn't really diluted the FBS ...and most of the other adds to FBS (Ga State, UTSA, USA, Texas State, ODU and Charlotte) appear to serious about being competitive from a monetary standpoint. But how many new schools can be added without serious dilution of the quality of programs at the lower levels. That will be at least 8 new schools added in less than a five year period.

You forgot about UMass as well. So 9 new schools added in less than a five year period, and 2 more could be on the way if CUSA goes to 16 for some reason.
04-10-2013 01:30 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
HP-TBDPITL Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,495
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 82
I Root For: College Sports
Location:
Post: #13
RE: sounds like Idaho's AD was WRONG
That $1 mill is significant to a lot of these programs...don't see why they would want it decreased by a few hundred grand. The MAC and SBC have never gotten $1 mill in their TV deals...and I believe the old BCS payout was about $200 grand or so per team....that money will likely be spent separating the FBS from FCS in terms of coaches and facilities, across the board.
04-10-2013 01:30 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wedge Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 19,862
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 964
I Root For: California
Location: IV, V, VI, IX
Post: #14
RE: sounds like Idaho's AD was WRONG
(04-10-2013 01:24 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  Sounds like there would be very little incentive for CUSA to go to 16 teams. It would simply dilute their pie further.

That cap also removes any incentive for the Mountain West or the American to expand beyond 12 football teams.

And maybe the CUSA presidents should be asking Banowsky, "Tell us again why you pushed us to expand to 14 teams instead of just 12?"
(This post was last modified: 04-10-2013 01:34 PM by Wedge.)
04-10-2013 01:32 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
HP-TBDPITL Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,495
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 82
I Root For: College Sports
Location:
Post: #15
RE: sounds like Idaho's AD was WRONG
(04-10-2013 01:30 PM)stever20 Wrote:  
(04-10-2013 01:26 PM)HP-TBDPITL Wrote:  
(04-10-2013 01:20 PM)HuskieTap22 Wrote:  So is this why the Sun Belt is so adamant on getting to 12 teams? To maximize the payout?

Seems it gave them a reason to add the two FB only members...which is probably a good thing overall.

At this point adding App State and Ga Southern hasn't really diluted the FBS ...and most of the other adds to FBS (Ga State, UTSA, USA, Texas State, ODU and Charlotte) appear to serious about being competitive from a monetary standpoint. But how many new schools can be added without serious dilution of the quality of programs at the lower levels. That will be at least 8 new schools added in less than a five year period.

You forgot about UMass as well. So 9 new schools added in less than a five year period, and 2 more could be on the way if CUSA goes to 16 for some reason.

Yep...that's like 400 more FBS scholarships that weren't there in 2010.
04-10-2013 01:33 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
blunderbuss Offline
Banned

Posts: 19,649
Joined: Apr 2011
I Root For: ECU & the CSA
Location: Buzz City, NC
Post: #16
RE: sounds like Idaho's AD was WRONG
more proof CUSA backfilled to aggressively.
04-10-2013 01:33 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


stever20 Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 46,227
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation: 725
I Root For: Sports
Location:
Post: #17
RE: sounds like Idaho's AD was WRONG
thing that could be interesting-
say CUSA goes 16 and finishes 4th. Say they get 2.5 million.
SBC goes 12(picks up 2 more FCS schools) and finishes 5th. They get 1.5 million extra.
CUSA 14.5 million, 16 schools- 906k per school
SBC 13.5 million, 12 schools- 1,125k per school

For CUSA to just match SBC, they would need to finish at least #2 of the 5 conferences, and more likely #1. Even if they remain at 14, they would need 3.75 million from the group 2 money, which would probably be #3 type money.
04-10-2013 01:34 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
HP-TBDPITL Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,495
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 82
I Root For: College Sports
Location:
Post: #18
RE: sounds like Idaho's AD was WRONG
(04-10-2013 01:32 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(04-10-2013 01:24 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  Sounds like there would be very little incentive for CUSA to go to 16 teams. It would simply dilute their pie further.

That cap also removes any incentive for the Mountain West or the American to expand beyond 12 football teams.

Except the difference in money may be negligible for those two leagues because they will be receiving more TV money as well as likely getting the most Pool B and Pool C money. The American also has more substantial exit fee's...so a few hundred grand may not be a deal breaker if Army decided they wanted in (and then Southern Miss was added as well).
04-10-2013 01:36 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
HP-TBDPITL Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,495
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 82
I Root For: College Sports
Location:
Post: #19
RE: sounds like Idaho's AD was WRONG
(04-10-2013 01:34 PM)stever20 Wrote:  thing that could be interesting-
say CUSA goes 16 and finishes 4th. Say they get 2.5 million.
SBC goes 12(picks up 2 more FCS schools) and finishes 5th. They get 1.5 million extra.
CUSA 14.5 million, 16 schools- 906k per school
SBC 13.5 million, 12 schools- 1,125k per school

For CUSA to just match SBC, they would need to finish at least #2 of the 5 conferences, and more likely #1. Even if they remain at 14, they would need 3.75 million from the group 2 money, which would probably be #3 type money.

True..but keep in mind that CUSA's TV contract is much better than the SBC and by relegating the SBC to programs in Boone and Savannah over say Charlotte and Norfolk...they will always get more TV money. In short, it may pay in other ways (TV) that more than offsets the loss in per team revenue from the BCS.
(This post was last modified: 04-10-2013 01:41 PM by HP-TBDPITL.)
04-10-2013 01:40 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wedge Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 19,862
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 964
I Root For: California
Location: IV, V, VI, IX
Post: #20
RE: sounds like Idaho's AD was WRONG
(04-10-2013 01:36 PM)HP-TBDPITL Wrote:  
(04-10-2013 01:32 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(04-10-2013 01:24 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  Sounds like there would be very little incentive for CUSA to go to 16 teams. It would simply dilute their pie further.

That cap also removes any incentive for the Mountain West or the American to expand beyond 12 football teams.

Except the difference in money may be negligible for those two leagues because they will be receiving more TV money as well as likely getting the most Pool B and Pool C money. The American also has more substantial exit fee's...so a few hundred grand may not be a deal breaker if Army decided they wanted in (and then Southern Miss was added as well).

If there are expansion candidates that ESPN is willing to pay more for (Army, BYU), then the additional TV money would offset the dilution of playoff money, yes.

But if any new teams are teams that ESPN doesn't want to pay more for, then MWC or AAC is in the same boat as CUSA -- expansion above 12 is a dilution and a pay cut for each existing member.
(This post was last modified: 04-10-2013 01:41 PM by Wedge.)
04-10-2013 01:40 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.