There is no new "cap".

The BCS used a three part formula. One part equal shares, one part performance based, one part for going to the BCS.

The only thing that has changed is that leagues that are below 12 get the same per team as leagues with 12 rather than a full equal share.

Other than that, it's the same deal as before.

So this means the exodus to C-USA can start back up again? Cool!

(04-10-2013 11:03 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  There is no new "cap".

The BCS used a three part formula. One part equal shares, one part performance based, one part for going to the BCS.

The only thing that has changed is that leagues that are below 12 get the same per team as leagues with 12 rather than a full equal share.

Other than that, it's the same deal as before.

Except that a conference will get no more than 12 million, no matter how big. The incentive is clearly designed to reduce conference pilfering, and promote building up the league a school is in. If a conference grows its programs, it will increase its payout. This is just the beginning of this process, and the dollars will get larger as the playoff format expands... and it will.

With all the cherries picked, TV revenues will equalize and remove that motivation to switch for 5-10 years until it is clear which Go5 can garner the most media attention. The Go5 clearly has diminishing returns when it expands beyond 12. This will slow down movement in the second tier, no doubt about it... until and unless the Big 5 think it is their best interest to expand... then all bets are off.

Will it forbid a 16 team league? No. But it will provide for absolutely no financial advantage to it.

(04-10-2013 11:03 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  There is no new "cap".
The BCS used a three part formula. One part equal shares, one part performance based, one part for going to the BCS.
The only thing that has changed is that leagues that are below 12 get the same per team as leagues with 12 rather than a full equal share.
Other than that, it's the same deal as before.

Right. It's the same old c®ap with a little tweaking to insure everybodies the same. Pool B (performance based) is so marginally thin between #1 and #5 when divided by the 12 schools as to not even be an incentive at all. The difference between #2 and #63, at the end of the day, is meal money.

(04-11-2013 08:06 AM)GoAppsGo92 Wrote:  

(04-10-2013 11:03 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  There is no new "cap".

The BCS used a three part formula. One part equal shares, one part performance based, one part for going to the BCS.

The only thing that has changed is that leagues that are below 12 get the same per team as leagues with 12 rather than a full equal share.

Other than that, it's the same deal as before.

Except that a conference will get no more than 12 million, no matter how big. The incentive is clearly designed to reduce conference pilfering, and promote building up the league a school is in. If a conference grows its programs, it will increase its payout. This is just the beginning of this process, and the dollars will get larger as the playoff format expands... and it will.

With all the cherries picked, TV revenues will equalize and remove that motivation to switch for 5-10 years until it is clear which Go5 can garner the most media attention. The Go5 clearly has diminishing returns when it expands beyond 12. This will slow down movement in the second tier, no doubt about it... until and unless the Big 5 think it is their best interest to expand... then all bets are off.

Will it forbid a 16 team league? No. But it will provide for absolutely no financial advantage to it.

This

The significant thing to take from this is that conference movement within the group of 5 has been discouraged. It is a good thing for the Belt.

(04-10-2013 11:12 PM)gostAte870 Wrote:  So this means the exodus to C-USA can start back up again? Cool!

Yes.

Best of luck to stAte!

Z

(04-11-2013 08:06 AM)GoAppsGo92 Wrote:  Except that a conference will get no more than 12 million, no matter how big. The incentive is clearly designed to reduce conference pilfering, and promote building up the league a school is in. If a conference grows its programs, it will increase its payout. This is just the beginning of this process, and the dollars will get larger as the playoff format expands... and it will.

With all the cherries picked, TV revenues will equalize and remove that motivation to switch for 5-10 years until it is clear which Go5 can garner the most media attention. The Go5 clearly has diminishing returns when it expands beyond 12. This will slow down movement in the second tier, no doubt about it... until and unless the Big 5 think it is their best interest to expand... then all bets are off.

Will it forbid a 16 team league? No. But it will provide for absolutely no financial advantage to it.

Under the old system there was no financial advantage to having more than 8 schools, the minimum required to participate yet every conference had more than 8 (until the WAC was gutted), the MAC was 5 above that.

(04-11-2013 08:47 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(04-11-2013 08:06 AM)GoAppsGo92 Wrote:  Except that a conference will get no more than 12 million, no matter how big. The incentive is clearly designed to reduce conference pilfering, and promote building up the league a school is in. If a conference grows its programs, it will increase its payout. This is just the beginning of this process, and the dollars will get larger as the playoff format expands... and it will.

With all the cherries picked, TV revenues will equalize and remove that motivation to switch for 5-10 years until it is clear which Go5 can garner the most media attention. The Go5 clearly has diminishing returns when it expands beyond 12. This will slow down movement in the second tier, no doubt about it... until and unless the Big 5 think it is their best interest to expand... then all bets are off.

Will it forbid a 16 team league? No. But it will provide for absolutely no financial advantage to it.

Under the old system there was no financial advantage to having more than 8 schools, the minimum required to participate yet every conference had more than 8 (until the WAC was gutted), the MAC was 5 above that.

Maybe financially but what if a raid happened and you were at 8? You would be in trouble. I don't think this will cause CUSA to drop teams to be at 12 because it makes sense financially. However, I don't ever see them going above 14.

The Belt just got a lot more stable as did everyone else!

(04-11-2013 09:14 AM)asu7 Wrote:  

(04-11-2013 08:47 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(04-11-2013 08:06 AM)GoAppsGo92 Wrote:  Except that a conference will get no more than 12 million, no matter how big. The incentive is clearly designed to reduce conference pilfering, and promote building up the league a school is in. If a conference grows its programs, it will increase its payout. This is just the beginning of this process, and the dollars will get larger as the playoff format expands... and it will.

With all the cherries picked, TV revenues will equalize and remove that motivation to switch for 5-10 years until it is clear which Go5 can garner the most media attention. The Go5 clearly has diminishing returns when it expands beyond 12. This will slow down movement in the second tier, no doubt about it... until and unless the Big 5 think it is their best interest to expand... then all bets are off.

Will it forbid a 16 team league? No. But it will provide for absolutely no financial advantage to it.

Under the old system there was no financial advantage to having more than 8 schools, the minimum required to participate yet every conference had more than 8 (until the WAC was gutted), the MAC was 5 above that.

Maybe financially but what if a raid happened and you were at 8? You would be in trouble. I don't think this will cause CUSA to drop teams to be at 12 because it makes sense financially. However, I don't ever see them going above 14.

The Belt just got a lot more stable as did everyone else!

I dunno...save a dime, lose a dollar might be in play.

For $100, 000 a team you can stop looking over your shoulder for years and only look up at the conferences you need to beat above you...fix your division alignment....and have better football.

Or...save $100, 000 but me more or less equal with MAC/SBC...have wonky divisions...and less good football programs.

I still wouldn't rule it out.

(04-10-2013 11:03 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  There is no new "cap".

The BCS used a three part formula. One part equal shares, one part performance based, one part for going to the BCS.

The only thing that has changed is that leagues that are below 12 get the same per team as leagues with 12 rather than a full equal share.

Other than that, it's the same deal as before.

It may not be a game-changer, but it is certainly a deterrent. There may be compelling reasons for going beyond 12 (or going bigger than 14, in the case of CUSA) but they are much less quantifiable than this payout plan.

If it's true that Big 10 wants to get to 16, I'm not sure but that all realignment right now in the G5 is pissin' in the wind.

Another reason the cap does matter is that the payout right now is $1 million per team. As college football and the playoffs expand, that number will grow. So right now if CUSA chooses to go to 16 instead if 12, it costs each member $250k. I could easily see this number increasing to $500k or more in 5-10 years.

Very risky going beyond 12. I could see CUSA at 16 creating unforeseen problems that force a split of the conference. If you make big moves it almost always creates problems that you could not see at the time.

I guess one thing that needs to be considered is what is each CUSA member's net under their TV deal. If they go to 16 and receive $750,000 up front from the playoff, $600,000 net from their TV deal, and another $300,000 from the remaining playoff proceeds, they will still be doing better at 16 members than a 12 member SBC. Under those numbers, they will be pulling in $1.65M per member, whereas the SBC would be realizing ($1M+$40K (TV money)+ ~$300k(remaining playoff money)) $1.34M. On top of all of that, CUSA may realize a savings in travel expenses, which would help their bottom line even more.

(04-11-2013 12:24 PM)bluephi1914 Wrote:  I guess one thing that needs to be considered is what is each CUSA member's net under their TV deal. If they go to 16 and receive $750,000 up front from the playoff, $600,000 net from their TV deal, and another $300,000 from the remaining playoff proceeds, they will still be doing better at 16 members than a 12 member SBC. Under those numbers, they will be pulling in $1.65M per member, whereas the SBC would be realizing ($1M+$40K (TV money)+ ~$300k(remaining playoff money)) $1.34M. On top of all of that, CUSA may realize a savings in travel expenses, which would help their bottom line even more.

This,
However you are risking a lot for 300K+/-. You would have to assume that the CUSA TV deal is always going to be significantly higher than the Sun Belt's. The Sun Belt's does not have to go up near as much with 4 less teams either to close that gap. In the end we are not talking game changing money and I would rather risk splitting any pie, especially one that can change in size year to year by hundreds of thousands, 12 ways rather than 16.

Core problems.

AAC, CUSA, Sun Belt line-ups are all patches and many of the patches exist to help teams who left once they got their way.

The Big 5 leagues have more than enough teams to fill all significant Saturday TV exposures with teams left over, that doesn't leave many opportunities to be on channels with a lot of eyeballs on Saturday. Even if you get CBSS odds are you are watching ABC, ESPN*, CBS, NBC, Fox regional instead.

To get on the channels with eyeballs, you have to play weeknights but weeknights are available because #1. The big leagues won't hurt their gate receipts to play much on weeknights. #2. The audience isn't there, many a person who spends all day Saturday watching college football knows his wife will bean him if he flips to ESPN instead of what she wants to watch.

There just isn't a lot of money to move around there.

(04-11-2013 01:19 PM)JCGSU Wrote:  

(04-11-2013 12:24 PM)bluephi1914 Wrote:  I guess one thing that needs to be considered is what is each CUSA member's net under their TV deal. If they go to 16 and receive $750,000 up front from the playoff, $600,000 net from their TV deal, and another $300,000 from the remaining playoff proceeds, they will still be doing better at 16 members than a 12 member SBC. Under those numbers, they will be pulling in $1.65M per member, whereas the SBC would be realizing ($1M+$40K (TV money)+ ~$300k(remaining playoff money)) $1.34M. On top of all of that, CUSA may realize a savings in travel expenses, which would help their bottom line even more.

This,
However you are risking a lot for 300K+/-. You would have to assume that the CUSA TV deal is always going to be significantly higher than the Sun Belt's. The Sun Belt's does not have to go up near as much with 4 less teams either to close that gap. In the end we are not talking game changing money and I would rather risk splitting any pie, especially one that can change in size year to year by hundreds of thousands, 12 ways rather than 16.

The SBC lost the number five market, and the number 16 market, and number 29 market. CUSA took all of those, and in addition added 24th,27th, 37th.

I know I have a lot of EXPN, FX, and CBS programing experts here who think Ga Southern will be worth more than say FIU in Miami. Not true. The Sun Belt will get a lot less per team than C USA.

(04-11-2013 01:29 PM)CajunExpress Wrote:  

(04-11-2013 01:19 PM)JCGSU Wrote:  

(04-11-2013 12:24 PM)bluephi1914 Wrote:  I guess one thing that needs to be considered is what is each CUSA member's net under their TV deal. If they go to 16 and receive $750,000 up front from the playoff, $600,000 net from their TV deal, and another $300,000 from the remaining playoff proceeds, they will still be doing better at 16 members than a 12 member SBC. Under those numbers, they will be pulling in $1.65M per member, whereas the SBC would be realizing ($1M+$40K (TV money)+ ~$300k(remaining playoff money)) $1.34M. On top of all of that, CUSA may realize a savings in travel expenses, which would help their bottom line even more.

This,
However you are risking a lot for 300K+/-. You would have to assume that the CUSA TV deal is always going to be significantly higher than the Sun Belt's. The Sun Belt's does not have to go up near as much with 4 less teams either to close that gap. In the end we are not talking game changing money and I would rather risk splitting any pie, especially one that can change in size year to year by hundreds of thousands, 12 ways rather than 16.

The SBC lost the number five market, and the number 16 market, and number 29 market. CUSA took all of those, and in addition added 24th,27th, 37th.

I know I have a lot of EXPN, FX, and CBS programing experts here who think Ga Southern will be worth more than say FIU in Miami. Not true. The Sun Belt will get a lot less per team than C USA.

This is true; however, the negotiations with the networks and the AAC (old Big East) has shown that markets is not the overriding factor when it comes to the television dollars. It will still come down to eyeballs. If the AAC, who has that programs to generate decent eyeballs, can only fetch the $2m per they received, CUSA, who cannot generate as many eyeballs as the AAC, will stay in the $1m-$1.5m per range in the future. According to ArkSt, that $1m-$1.5m per number is gross and not net. So, the actual amount received could be within the $500k-$700k range.

Another thing to remember is that, like it or not, the new SBC lineup probably isn't as attractive to the casual fan of someone like ASU or ULL. They're more likely to have better ticket sales, more donations, etc being in conference with some old SBC brethren + some of the left over CUSA schools than the new SBC line up.

If UL is selling a conference season ticket package with:

a. Georgia Southern, Troy, Georgia State, Idaho, TxState

vs a ticket package with:

b. USM, La Tech, Rice, UTEP, MT

What's the Cajun fan more likely to buy? What's more likely to spur donations? (Same with ASU).

IMHO, just a matter of time before Banowsky makes that phone call.

(04-11-2013 01:49 PM)RaiderDoug Wrote:  Another thing to remember is that, like it or not, the new SBC lineup probably isn't as attractive to the casual fan of someone like ASU or ULL. They're more likely to have better ticket sales, more donations, etc being in conference with some old SBC brethren + some of the left over CUSA schools than the new SBC line up.

If UL is selling a conference season ticket package with:

a. Georgia Southern, Troy, Georgia State, Idaho, TxState

vs a ticket package with:

b. USM, La Tech, Rice, UTEP, MT

What's the Cajun fan more likely to buy? What's more likely to spur donations? (Same with ASU).

IMHO, just a matter of time before Banowsky makes that phone call.

At least one of those games is a guaranteed sell out/standing room only game.

(04-11-2013 01:50 PM)AstroCajun Wrote:  

(04-11-2013 01:49 PM)RaiderDoug Wrote:  Another thing to remember is that, like it or not, the new SBC lineup probably isn't as attractive to the casual fan of someone like ASU or ULL. They're more likely to have better ticket sales, more donations, etc being in conference with some old SBC brethren + some of the left over CUSA schools than the new SBC line up.

If UL is selling a conference season ticket package with:

a. Georgia Southern, Troy, Georgia State, Idaho, TxState

vs a ticket package with:

b. USM, La Tech, Rice, UTEP, MT

What's the Cajun fan more likely to buy? What's more likely to spur donations? (Same with ASU).

IMHO, just a matter of time before Banowsky makes that phone call.

At least one of those games is a guaranteed sell out/standing room only game.

Of course - Georgia Southern. Just ask them.