(04-27-2013 03:38 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  You act like the AAC added a bunch of Notre Dames. Yes, the AAC added some quality programs, but it's not like those schools were on the verge of getting invites to the Big 12 or SEC.

I don't see any point in trying to speculate about what the next C-USA contract will look like by comparing the teams that each conference added. There are many factors at play. (records, markets, proximity to fellow conference mates, fan interest, attendance, schedules, ...)

It is just my opinion, but between SMU and North Texas, I think North Texas will carry a larger share of the Dallas/Fort Worth market. SMU has been to 3 straight bowl games and still can't draw flies. Not only does UNT have a larger fan base but other programs in C-USA West (Rice, UTEP, and UTSA) have large numbers of alumni in the region. It is a market where I see C-USA having an advantage over the AAC.

No, really I don't act like that.

I act like there's been a difference in national regard for SMU and the other defectors that UNT and other CUSA newbies do not have.

It's one thing to sit here and type and chatter about this stuff, it's another when dollars are at stake and decisions that are made have implications to the careers of those making them... to wit, there's a reason why SMU was invited to AAC instead of UNT... there's a reason why Houston was invited to AAC instead of Rice... there's a reason why UCF was invited instead of FIU or FAU...

If you're negotiating a TV contract, you begin with what you know, not what you hope will happen... and what you know is what TV ratings La Tech has pulled over the last 5 years... what TV ratings Marshall has pulled... what TV ratings ECU has pulled.

Has La Tech played Marshall?

No, but if you took a business stats course, you probably realize that there are some mathematical ways to project within some reasonable accuracy what that rating would look like, simply because both have been on TV enough to plug-in some numbers.

All of the "yeah, but look at our alumni base here" or "yeah, but we raised X-million more for athletics last year"... those things will have minimal effect on the final number because the bottom line is straight-up what kind of an audience can we project that this school will draw when we put them on the schedule.

(04-27-2013 03:10 PM)Freshy Wrote:  

Ahhh... some medicine from The Enforcer... yikes... I better shape up.

(04-27-2013 04:18 PM)_sturt_ Wrote:  

(04-27-2013 03:38 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  You act like the AAC added a bunch of Notre Dames. Yes, the AAC added some quality programs, but it's not like those schools were on the verge of getting invites to the Big 12 or SEC.

I don't see any point in trying to speculate about what the next C-USA contract will look like by comparing the teams that each conference added. There are many factors at play. (records, markets, proximity to fellow conference mates, fan interest, attendance, schedules, ...)

It is just my opinion, but between SMU and North Texas, I think North Texas will carry a larger share of the Dallas/Fort Worth market. SMU has been to 3 straight bowl games and still can't draw flies. Not only does UNT have a larger fan base but other programs in C-USA West (Rice, UTEP, and UTSA) have large numbers of alumni in the region. It is a market where I see C-USA having an advantage over the AAC.

No, really I don't act like that.

I act like there's been a difference in national regard for SMU and the other defectors that UNT and other CUSA newbies do not have.

It's one thing to sit here and type and chatter about this stuff, it's another when dollars are at stake and decisions that are made have implications to the careers of those making them... to wit, there's a reason why SMU was invited to AAC instead of UNT... there's a reason why Houston was invited to AAC instead of Rice... there's a reason why UCF was invited instead of FIU or FAU...

If you're negotiating a TV contract, you begin with what you know, not what you hope will happen... and what you know is what TV ratings La Tech has pulled over the last 5 years... what TV ratings Marshall has pulled... what TV ratings ECU has pulled.

Has La Tech played Marshall?

No, but if you took a business stats course, you probably realize that there are some mathematical ways to project within some reasonable accuracy what that rating would look like, simply because both have been on TV enough to plug-in some numbers.

All of the "yeah, but look at our alumni base here" or "yeah, but we raised X-million more for athletics last year"... those things will have minimal effect on the final number because the bottom line is straight-up what kind of an audience can we project that this school will draw when we put them on the schedule.

So about this, how bout you go spread your word to the realignment board and leave to good folks here on the CUSA board alone to talk positive things about their conference.

Nope, sturt, you still argue out of both sides of your mouth.....market is good but not for C-USA (just as an aside, we've gone from 10 to 14 million sets of eyeballs). It's quality not market that counts, unless it's C-USA (another aside, historically, the highest television ranking team in just busted up version of C-USA is a "leftover" not a defector). Ratings, and not market size, is what determines ad rates.

As for your "they have better rep than us" position - SMU v FIU....SMU gets "that's the team that got the death penalty about 10 years ago, right?" and FIU gets "damn, those guys made a major run in this years NCAA tournament". Of course, neither is correct.

If Charlotte, ODU, UTSA, UTEP, USM, and MTSU can engage/retain/improve their fan base following, the CUSA contract will remain on the same course. If not, then there may be a decrease or freeze.

However, the same can be said for the SMU, Tulane, Houston, and so on. Regardless of the same "national regard for SMU" and others.

One is not contingent on the other.

I don't think you could really say any team in CUSA since 2005 has a great "brand name" the closest you may get is Memphis. CUSA's tv contract has never been based on brand names. Its been based on being one of the top NON BCS conferences or the Go5. Nothing has really changed in any of that other than the Big East has been relegated. CUSA is very unlikely to lose money and will probably get an increase. I think we will see something to where CUSA is now and AAC money. What it all really depends on is the need for college football tv content between now and the end of our contract. With two new sports networks coming online soon or already online I am thinking we are going to ok if not better.

(04-27-2013 04:30 PM)_sturt_ Wrote:  

(04-27-2013 03:10 PM)Freshy Wrote:  

Ahhh... some medicine from The Enforcer... yikes... I better shape up.

I have no idea who that is. I assume it is some dude from Survivor with your 'vote off the island' reference.

In any case, my permanent mental image of you now is a sweaty brother wearing pink panties and spewing nonsense on the internet.

(04-27-2013 05:05 PM)WinOrLoseEAGLE Wrote:  Nope, sturt, you still argue out of both sides of your mouth.....market is good but not for C-USA (just as an aside, we've gone from 10 to 14 million sets of eyeballs). It's quality not market that counts, unless it's C-USA (another aside, historically, the highest television ranking team in just busted up version of C-USA is a "leftover" not a defector). Ratings, and not market size, is what determines ad rates.

As for your "they have better rep than us" position - SMU v FIU....SMU gets "that's the team that got the death penalty about 10 years ago, right?" and FIU gets "damn, those guys made a major run in this years NCAA tournament". Of course, neither is correct.

Let me put this together for you, since you evidently skim instead of reading, and prematurely think you've got things figured out.

1. When you don't have the ratings, all you can do is go for market size. That's what Banowsky's done. Better to have a school in the Nashville market than to have a school in the Jonesboro market.

2. Reputation isn't branding.

(04-27-2013 06:08 PM)cyc46 Wrote:  I don't think you could really say any team in CUSA since 2005 has a great "brand name" the closest you may get is Memphis. CUSA's tv contract has never been based on brand names. Its been based on being one of the top NON BCS conferences or the Go5. Nothing has really changed in any of that other than the Big East has been relegated. CUSA is very unlikely to lose money and will probably get an increase. I think we will see something to where CUSA is now and AAC money. What it all really depends on is the need for college football tv content between now and the end of our contract. With two new sports networks coming online soon or already online I am thinking we are going to ok if not better.

I don't think we're on the same page. When I say brand name, I'm talking about name recognition. I've made the point repeatedly, you can take the worst CUSA football team, and Joe Fan will watch a game with that team before he watches a game featuring most Sun Belt teams. No offense to our new partners, but they know as well as the rest of us that the typical fan would recognize Tulane as a FBS team whereas many would not recognize most of the newcomers as FBS teams.

And... again... can we please set aside this idea that more sports networks translates into big money? We just learned that lesson from the AAC's experience. Boise went home because the NBC/Comcast vs. ESPN bidding war just didn't materialize. Networks can't just throw money for the purpose of inventory... the inventory has to be capable to generate an audience that advertisers will pay for.

(04-27-2013 07:21 PM)_sturt_ Wrote:  

(04-27-2013 05:05 PM)WinOrLoseEAGLE Wrote:  Nope, sturt, you still argue out of both sides of your mouth.....market is good but not for C-USA (just as an aside, we've gone from 10 to 14 million sets of eyeballs). It's quality not market that counts, unless it's C-USA (another aside, historically, the highest television ranking team in just busted up version of C-USA is a "leftover" not a defector). Ratings, and not market size, is what determines ad rates.

As for your "they have better rep than us" position - SMU v FIU....SMU gets "that's the team that got the death penalty about 10 years ago, right?" and FIU gets "damn, those guys made a major run in this years NCAA tournament". Of course, neither is correct.

Let me put this together for you, since you evidently skim instead of reading, and prematurely think you've got things figured out.

1. When you don't have the ratings, all you can do is go for market size. That's what Banowsky's done. Better to have a school in the Nashville market than to have a school in the Jonesboro market.

2. Reputation isn't branding.

And markets aren't ratings. I tried to give you benefit of anger, irritation, frustration - something - other than being a troll with limited ambition toward reasonable discussion. Just not happening for you. Adios.

(04-27-2013 07:39 PM)WinOrLoseEAGLE Wrote:  And markets aren't ratings.

Exactly.

Gaining all these markets is the best you can do for the future, but the truth is, no matter what market FIU is in, no matter what market MTSU is in, no matter what market WKU is in... etc... their history is garnering ratings results which have earned $40k annually... and slapping a CUSA label on them isn't going to change that.

(04-27-2013 01:37 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  Seriously, if someone said "You can be on CST 2 times a year and get $2,000,000" OR "you can be on ESPN 5 times a year and get $100,000" I'd take the exposure any day.

Uhm... as a fan you might say that. If you're a school's Athletic director for a school, if you said that, you'd be run out of town on rails.

(04-27-2013 07:39 PM)WinOrLoseEAGLE Wrote:  

(04-27-2013 07:21 PM)_sturt_ Wrote:  

(04-27-2013 05:05 PM)WinOrLoseEAGLE Wrote:  Nope, sturt, you still argue out of both sides of your mouth.....market is good but not for C-USA (just as an aside, we've gone from 10 to 14 million sets of eyeballs). It's quality not market that counts, unless it's C-USA (another aside, historically, the highest television ranking team in just busted up version of C-USA is a "leftover" not a defector). Ratings, and not market size, is what determines ad rates.

As for your "they have better rep than us" position - SMU v FIU....SMU gets "that's the team that got the death penalty about 10 years ago, right?" and FIU gets "damn, those guys made a major run in this years NCAA tournament". Of course, neither is correct.

Let me put this together for you, since you evidently skim instead of reading, and prematurely think you've got things figured out.

1. When you don't have the ratings, all you can do is go for market size. That's what Banowsky's done. Better to have a school in the Nashville market than to have a school in the Jonesboro market.

2. Reputation isn't branding.

And markets aren't ratings. I tried to give you benefit of anger, irritation, frustration - something - other than being a troll with limited ambition toward reasonable discussion. Just not happening for you. Adios.

I believe I already pointed this out...more music?

(04-27-2013 07:47 PM)_sturt_ Wrote:  

(04-27-2013 07:39 PM)WinOrLoseEAGLE Wrote:  And markets aren't ratings.

Exactly.

Gaining all these markets is the best you can do for the future, but the truth is, no matter what market FIU is in, no matter what market MTSU is in, no matter what market WKU is in... etc... their history is garnering ratings results which have earned $40k annually... and slapping a CUSA label on them isn't going to change that.

You make absolutely no sense. Nothing you're writing has any logic. Since you're making great strides to come across as an expert please explain the follow to me.

If the new CUSA contract is going to be closer to the Sun Belt money ($40K per school), why haven't the networks tried to renegotiate the contract? Do you think these businessmen are generous enough to give away nearly 13 million dollars a year for the next 3 years? Think about it. The fact that there hasn't been any talks of renegotiations should be an indicator. The new CUSA increased its TV market by 40%. I don't think the networks mind that.

I'm intrigue as to what kind of Bulls*t answer you will provide.

(04-27-2013 08:31 PM)Freshy Wrote:  

(04-27-2013 08:36 PM)CivilEng Wrote:  If the new CUSA contract is going to be closer to the Sun Belt money ($40K per school), why haven't the networks tried to renegotiate the contract? Do you think these businessmen are generous enough to give away nearly 13 million dollars a year for the next 3 years? Think about it. The fact that there hasn't been any talks of renegotiations should be an indicator.

I was thinking about it quite possibly before you were... and, regardless, I agree with you. We should get an indication well before 2015.

The mistake you make is to assume that there will be no renegotiation just because they aren't already doing so, what, just a month after Tulsa and WKU made their moves.

So I say back to you... think about it... if you were paying attention, in the last month the Marshall AD brought up renegotiation without being specifically prompted about it... the takeaway is that it's revealing that it's at the top of his mind.

And another "think about it"... there's really not much reason to rush into renegotiating... might as well wait until after the season when there would be some actual audience data from which to base some numbers.

You seem inclined to call whatever I would say "BS." So, there you go... have at it.

(04-27-2013 08:36 PM)CivilEng Wrote:  The new CUSA increased its TV market by 40%. I don't think the networks mind that.

Someone who often makes a lot of sense recently said, "When you don't have the ratings, all you can do is go for market size. That's what Banowsky's done. Better to have a school in the Nashville market than to have a school in the Jonesboro market... Gaining all these markets is the best you can do for the future, but the truth is, no matter what market FIU is in, no matter what market MTSU is in, no matter what market WKU is in... etc... their history is garnering ratings results which have earned $40k annually... and slapping a CUSA label on them isn't going to change that."

(04-27-2013 09:06 PM)_sturt_ Wrote:  

(04-27-2013 08:36 PM)CivilEng Wrote:  If the new CUSA contract is going to be closer to the Sun Belt money ($40K per school), why haven't the networks tried to renegotiate the contract? Do you think these businessmen are generous enough to give away nearly 13 million dollars a year for the next 3 years? Think about it. The fact that there hasn't been any talks of renegotiations should be an indicator.

I was thinking about it quite possibly before you were... and, regardless, I agree with you. We should get an indication well before 2015.

The mistake you make is to assume that there will be no renegotiation just because they aren't already doing so, what, just a month after Tulsa and WKU made their moves.

So I say back to you... think about it... if you were paying attention, in the last month the Marshall AD brought up renegotiation without being specifically prompted about it... the takeaway is that it's revealing that it's at the top of his mind.

And another "think about it"... there's really not much reason to rush into renegotiating... might as well wait until after the season when there would be some actual audience data from which to base some numbers.

You seem inclined to call whatever I would say "BS." So, there you go... have at it.

(04-27-2013 08:36 PM)CivilEng Wrote:  The new CUSA increased its TV market by 40%. I don't think the networks mind that.

Someone who often makes a lot of sense recently said, "When you don't have the ratings, all you can do is go for market size. That's what Banowsky's done. Better to have a school in the Nashville market than to have a school in the Jonesboro market... Gaining all these markets is the best you can do for the future, but the truth is, no matter what market FIU is in, no matter what market MTSU is in, no matter what market WKU is in... etc... their history is garnering ratings results which have earned $40k annually... and slapping a CUSA label on them isn't going to change that."

sturt, you need to get a grip and face reality. UNT, FIU, MT, FAU, and WKU have moved on. Your school was left behind in the Sun Belt. For whatever reason, CUSA presidents chose those five institutions over whatever Sun Belt school it is that you support. Conference realignment has ended, and your school has obviously ended up on the short end of the stick. That isn't the fault of any of your former conference mates, so take your bitterness over to the SBC board. The crap you're spewing will sell much better over there.

(04-27-2013 09:06 PM)_sturt_ Wrote:  

(04-27-2013 08:36 PM)CivilEng Wrote:  If the new CUSA contract is going to be closer to the Sun Belt money ($40K per school), why haven't the networks tried to renegotiate the contract? Do you think these businessmen are generous enough to give away nearly 13 million dollars a year for the next 3 years? Think about it. The fact that there hasn't been any talks of renegotiations should be an indicator.

I was thinking about it quite possibly before you were... and, regardless, I agree with you. We should get an indication well before 2015.

The mistake you make is to assume that there will be no renegotiation just because they aren't already doing so, what, just a month after Tulsa and WKU made their moves.

So I say back to you... think about it... if you were paying attention, in the last month the Marshall AD brought up renegotiation without being specifically prompted about it... the takeaway is that it's revealing that it's at the top of his mind.

And another "think about it"... there's really not much reason to rush into renegotiating... might as well wait until after the season when there would be some actual audience data from which to base some numbers.

You seem inclined to call whatever I would say "BS." So, there you go... have at it.

(04-27-2013 08:36 PM)CivilEng Wrote:  The new CUSA increased its TV market by 40%. I don't think the networks mind that.

Someone who often makes a lot of sense recently said, "When you don't have the ratings, all you can do is go for market size. That's what Banowsky's done. Better to have a school in the Nashville market than to have a school in the Jonesboro market... Gaining all these markets is the best you can do for the future, but the truth is, no matter what market FIU is in, no matter what market MTSU is in, no matter what market WKU is in... etc... their history is garnering ratings results which have earned $40k annually... and slapping a CUSA label on them isn't going to change that."

sturt, you need to get a grip and face reality. UNT, FIU, MT, FAU, and WKU have moved on. Your school was left behind in the Sun Belt. For whatever reason, CUSA presidents chose those five institutions over whatever Sun Belt school it is that you support. Conference realignment has ended, and your school has obviously ended up on the short end of the stick. That isn't the fault of any of your former conference mates, so take your bitterness over to the SBC board. The crap you're spewing will sell much better over there.

I wrongly assumed that this guy was a fan of a CUSA program or I would have never responded. That was a complete waste of time.

(04-27-2013 07:44 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  No matter what the Sunbelt is getting, it doesn't mean that CUSA will get that with new deal. Is CUSA likely to get a haircut?? probably yes, but doubt it is going to be even close to Belt levels. My guess is CUSA if it does well over the next couple/few years till its deal comes up, it may well freeze it where it is, get a very small increase, or take a 10 to 30% drop. It will not drop off the face of the earth to Sun levels.

---------------

Only a few seem to realize the current cusa contract involved the Houstons, Memphis, SMU, etc who have now left for greener pastures. When the current contract expires the media dollars will plummet. This league has morphed into the Sunbelt and will bring in even more of them before its over. The new Cbelt is nothing more than a renamed Sunbelt.