CUSA plays better BBall than the CAA? Sure it does ... for now ... though the cautionary note is in order, since every round of realignment tends to reduce their strength.

Of course that's true of the MAC as well, but he's not selling the MAC.

I think CAA's not long for this world if it can't reconcile what it needs and schools like Hofstra who act out of self-preservation.

When people want good basketball in CAA, Fairfield and Furman are not the schools who add the prestige. Elon doesn't, and while they were cool in the late 90's, CoC hasn't exactly made things better, either.

CUSA now has one of the CAA's better programs in ODU, and an old salt in Charlotte. CUSA should be better than CAA EVERY year from here on out.

(03-15-2014 12:17 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  CUSA now has one of the CAA's better programs in ODU, and an old salt in Charlotte. CUSA should be better than CAA EVERY year from here on out.

Though if CUSA is gutted again by realignment, they'll be going to the Sunbelt to reload, and raiding a conference that is weaker than the CAA in BBall is likely to pull CUSA BBall down toward Sunbelt BBall.

(03-15-2014 12:42 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  4. The rise of the conference network is creating OTA TV window openings, that may not produce big revenue but can greatly increase the profile of G5 leagues.

I totally agree with this. The High Resource Conferences built their popularity and brand on being on OTA affiliates when there were few channels and their sports were all that were seen. As they abandon these slots for money and they are back-filled by the Sun Belt, ACC, MAC, etc... then those people will now see those games instead and that brand will be built. 60 million Americans are now watching free OTA TV only and that trend is accelerating.

ESPN is using college sports as a desperation play to keep people on cable. It could backfire.

Unless ESPN is going to totally pay-up for the MAC ($5 million* per team per year), then I hope the MAC keeps the existing ESPN feature games and then goes after the OTA markets big time for everything else.

* $5 million per year per team based on that being 20% of the revenue ($25 million) that the Big Ten gets. This is fair value considering we have 20% of the attendance of the Big Ten, have 20% of the TV ratings of the Big Ten, and the new College Football Playoff money values the MAC 20% of what the Big Ten gets ($18 million). So why shouldn't the MAC and the other G5 conferences get at least 20% of the same TV money?

(03-15-2014 03:19 PM)Miami (Oh) Yeah ! Wrote:  

(03-15-2014 12:42 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  4. The rise of the conference network is creating OTA TV window openings, that may not produce big revenue but can greatly increase the profile of G5 leagues.

I totally agree with this. The High Resource Conferences built their popularity and brand on being on OTA affiliates when there were few channels and their sports were all that were seen. As they abandon these slots for money and they are back-filled by the Sun Belt, ACC, MAC, etc... then those people will now see those games instead and that brand will be built. 60 million Americans are now watching free OTA TV only and that trend is accelerating.

ESPN is using college sports as a desperation play to keep people on cable. It could backfire.

Unless ESPN is going to totally pay-up for the MAC ($5 million* per team per year), then I hope the MAC keeps the existing ESPN feature games and then goes after the OTA markets big time for everything else.

* $5 million per year per team based on that being 20% of the revenue ($25 million) that the Big Ten gets. This is fair value considering we have 20% of the attendance of the Big Ten, have 20% of the TV ratings of the Big Ten, and the new College Football Playoff money values the MAC 20% of what the Big Ten gets ($18 million). So why shouldn't the MAC and the other G5 conferences get at least 20% of the same TV money?

With the money the MAC and Sun Belt receive from ESPN, it's not like the membership will notice if that money is diverted to create an OTA network and pay the costs to get going. Treat it as an investment.

(03-15-2014 03:30 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(03-15-2014 03:19 PM)Miami (Oh) Yeah ! Wrote:  

(03-15-2014 12:42 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  4. The rise of the conference network is creating OTA TV window openings, that may not produce big revenue but can greatly increase the profile of G5 leagues.

I totally agree with this. The High Resource Conferences built their popularity and brand on being on OTA affiliates when there were few channels and their sports were all that were seen. As they abandon these slots for money and they are back-filled by the Sun Belt, ACC, MAC, etc... then those people will now see those games instead and that brand will be built. 60 million Americans are now watching free OTA TV only and that trend is accelerating.

ESPN is using college sports as a desperation play to keep people on cable. It could backfire.

Unless ESPN is going to totally pay-up for the MAC ($5 million* per team per year), then I hope the MAC keeps the existing ESPN feature games and then goes after the OTA markets big time for everything else.

* $5 million per year per team based on that being 20% of the revenue ($25 million) that the Big Ten gets. This is fair value considering we have 20% of the attendance of the Big Ten, have 20% of the TV ratings of the Big Ten, and the new College Football Playoff money values the MAC 20% of what the Big Ten gets ($18 million). So why shouldn't the MAC and the other G5 conferences get at least 20% of the same TV money?

With the money the MAC and Sun Belt receive from ESPN, it's not like the membership will notice if that money is diverted to create an OTA network and pay the costs to get going. Treat it as an investment.

Also, in the MAC's case and much of the other G5 conferences, we are already providing school produced content to our digital networks that is getting to be pretty high quality stuff. It would cost nothing extra to pipeline that same content to a conference controlled network of affiliates which would cost those affiliates nothing to produce. It would be no extra expense to the schools (they already produce this content to the digital networks) and no cost to the syndicate affiliates.

Best part about it is that the NBC, CBS, Fox, ABC affiliates have a higher market saturation (22%) then any cable or satellite outlet can grab as every cable company carries these affiliates already PLUS the affiliates carry the 22% of households that dont pay for TV.

(03-15-2014 03:37 PM)Miami (Oh) Yeah ! Wrote:  Best part about it is that the NBC, CBS, Fox, ABC affiliates have a higher market saturation (22%) then any cable or satellite outlet can grab as every cable company carries these affiliates already PLUS the affiliates carry the 22% of households that dont pay for TV.

And between AppleTV, Chomrecast, Roku and internet TV's, a growing share of those households have easy streaming video access, opening up the business model of providing the games to the OTA affiliates as basically an infomercial for ad-free subscription streaming, combining both the exposure advantage of getting wide OTA broadcast exposure with a potential additional revenue stream.

(03-15-2014 03:55 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(03-15-2014 03:37 PM)Miami (Oh) Yeah ! Wrote:  Best part about it is that the NBC, CBS, Fox, ABC affiliates have a higher market saturation (22%) then any cable or satellite outlet can grab as every cable company carries these affiliates already PLUS the affiliates carry the 22% of households that dont pay for TV.

And between AppleTV, Chomrecast, Roku and internet TV's, a growing share of those households have easy streaming video access, opening up the business model of providing the games to the OTA affiliates as basically an infomercial for ad-free subscription streaming, combining both the exposure advantage of getting wide OTA broadcast exposure with a potential additional revenue stream.

The technology is already present where a person could fire up the Apple TV or Roku or smart TV and bring up the league's app and if the game is broadcast locally, you can give a blackout message or a "This game is not available on this device but is available on KLRT 16".

I just paid sixty something dollars to MLS for the games. I get every game not shown on a national network but if I lived closer to a team, I'd be blacked out for the local team any time my local TV or the local regional sports net had a game on.

(03-15-2014 05:01 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  The technology is already present ...

Yes, technology normally leads the development of a sustainable business model. The free w/ads to promote paid ad-free subscription with additional content and value-added features is one model that has emerged among a variety of successful independent niche content providers.

(03-15-2014 12:17 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  I think CAA's not long for this world if it can't reconcile what it needs and schools like Hofstra who act out of self-preservation.

When people want good basketball in CAA, Fairfield and Furman are not the schools who add the prestige. Elon doesn't, and while they were cool in the late 90's, CoC hasn't exactly made things better, either.

CUSA now has one of the CAA's better programs in ODU, and an old salt in Charlotte. CUSA should be better than CAA EVERY year from here on out.

Should be, could be, but they are not really. Sorry but the level of recruits going to ODU and UNCC are no better than the level of recruits going to most average schools.

And I would not bet money on the consistency of schools like USM and La Tech. When bigger fish need coaches CUSA coaches will be quickly taken.

(03-16-2014 09:30 AM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(03-15-2014 12:17 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  I think CAA's not long for this world if it can't reconcile what it needs and schools like Hofstra who act out of self-preservation.

When people want good basketball in CAA, Fairfield and Furman are not the schools who add the prestige. Elon doesn't, and while they were cool in the late 90's, CoC hasn't exactly made things better, either.

CUSA now has one of the CAA's better programs in ODU, and an old salt in Charlotte. CUSA should be better than CAA EVERY year from here on out.

Should be, could be, but they are not really. Sorry but the level of recruits going to ODU and UNCC are no better than the level of recruits going to most average schools.

And I would not bet money on the consistency of schools like USM and La Tech. When bigger fish need coaches CUSA coaches will be quickly taken.

I think the reason ODU and Charlotte are down (and maybe WKU, too) is because of those football programs they fielded. I agree that they may be a bit overstated as basketball assets now (we'll know more in the future if their respective departments continue to short them), but, if we're going to talk about a fluid CUSA, then the CAA's fluidity has to also be heavily considered.

Maybe if CAA can overcome its internal issues and finally gut the American East of its Vermont's, Albany's, and Stony Brook's, the CAA basketball picture will look better. Or the MAAC of its Iona's and Siena's. But, if we're seriously having a debate, the CAA plundering SoCon members is far worse, imo, than CUSA draining the Sun Belt. Both conferences are "diluting," but at least CUSA is picking up programs with occasional basketball credibility.

I don't know...I kind of see the schools CUSA's most likely to lose as being a good thing for their hoops credibility. UTEP, USM, or UAB are the ones that would hurt the most, but those guys are either not basketball-centered programs or are just really down as of late.

USM or UAB will be the last to go from C-USA. USM has no market, and UAB's struggles in football are too great to warrant a promotion.

Depending on who the Big XII takes from the American, some combination of FAU, FIU, ODU, WKU, and MTSU will be leaving C-USA. For basketball, ODU and WKU are the only ones whose departure will hurt C-USA.

(03-16-2014 06:02 PM)chargeradio Wrote:  USM or UAB will be the last to go from C-USA. USM has no market, and UAB's struggles in football are too great to warrant a promotion.

Depending on who the Big XII takes from the American, some combination of FAU, FIU, ODU, WKU, and MTSU will be leaving C-USA. For basketball, ODU and WKU are the only ones whose departure will hurt C-USA.

What B12 is taking from the AAC ? NOTHING

The clock is ticking. Just under two months. Even internally, there is pressure for JMU's leadership to make a decision one way or the other. All the fans want is hear what the plan is. No more analyzing or stalling. Even if there's not an immediate invitation to a new conference, just come out and say "Yes, we want to go FBS, and whether that's now or in the future, that is our goal."

(03-20-2014 10:30 PM)uakronkid Wrote:  The clock is ticking. Just under two months. Even internally, there is pressure for JMU's leadership to make a decision one way or the other. All the fans want is hear what the plan is. No more analyzing or stalling. Even if there's not an immediate invitation to a new conference, just come out and say "Yes, we want to go FBS, and whether that's now or in the future, that is our goal."

It might be too late to kick it down the field for another year, at least from the Sun Belt. FCS moveups are never as attractive as they think they are.

And if the Sun Belt moves without JMU, they'll be at the mercy of the MAC. And the MAC doesn't need another team.

(03-21-2014 12:44 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(03-20-2014 10:30 PM)uakronkid Wrote:  The clock is ticking. Just under two months. Even internally, there is pressure for JMU's leadership to make a decision one way or the other. All the fans want is hear what the plan is. No more analyzing or stalling. Even if there's not an immediate invitation to a new conference, just come out and say "Yes, we want to go FBS, and whether that's now or in the future, that is our goal."

It might be too late to kick it down the field for another year, at least from the Sun Belt. FCS moveups are never as attractive as they think they are.

And if the Sun Belt moves without JMU, they'll be at the mercy of the MAC. And the MAC doesn't need another team.

Especially if the rule pass where a conference can decide how to have a CCG game. Exception could be that a conference still must have 12 teams minimum to decide how to have a CCG. However, I can see it where possibly 11 teams could be the minimum since you won't be able to go round robin with only a 12 game schedule.

(03-16-2014 09:30 AM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  Sorry but the level of recruits going to ODU and UNCC are no better than the level of recruits going to most average schools.

ODU and Charlotte also haven't hand a full deck of cards to play in the recruiting game i.e. bowl eligibility, FBS conference, possibility of conference championship, etc.

(03-16-2014 11:41 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  I think the reason ODU and Charlotte are down (and maybe WKU, too) is because of those football programs they fielded. I agree that they may be a bit overstated as basketball assets now (we'll know more in the future if their respective departments continue to short them), but, if we're going to talk about a fluid CUSA, then the CAA's fluidity has to also be heavily considered.

I won't speak for any of the other programs, but ODU's "down" basketball program has nothing to to with restarting football or not adequately funding the program. Instead it had everything to do with our Head Coach relapsing with an alcohol problem. That resulted in a 5 win season where he was fired. The team is still a work in progress but we're currently 17-17, a 12 game swing in the win column. ODU won't be down for long. The basketball issue has nothing to do with resources.

UTEP, UAB, Old Dominion, Charlotte and Western Kentucky give C-USA more credibility at least on historical terms than anything the CAA has. Those five give C-USA 3.0 a solid foundation to start rebuilding again. Add Southern Miss, Louisiana Tech and Middle Tennessee having occasional runs as well and you have a solid conference. The problem with C-USA is having too many bottom teams with a RIP rank of 200+. This is not something new, it goes back to C-USA 2.0 which was Memphis and the others which really hurt C-USA perception wise. Sure, schools like UAB and UTEP challenged Memphis for the most part but apart from those two the other nine schools were just terrible. People act like if 2.0 was a great basketball league which was not. C-USA in whatever reincarnation it will be, will never be on the same level as 1.0 because quite frankly there's not that many programs with the pedigree of Louisville and Cincinnati. None of the programs that moved or are about to move to the AAC did nothing while in 2.0. Outside of Memphis, only Houston went to the NCAA Tournament once after a 20 year absence because they won the conference tournament just like Tulsa did this year. But just like Houston and Tulsa.....SMU, UCF, Tulane and East Carolina didn't do anything to improve basketball cred while in 2.0, they were part of the problem. I'm not that familiar with the CAA except that the school where I got my Master's degree (Northeastern University) is in it so I would rather not comment on something I'm not familiar with.

The short term solution is to schedule smart. Don't lose to schools you're supposed to beat by a large margin (like UTEP losing to New Orleans at home which killed any chances of an large-bid early in the season), have a minimum a one possible two schools ranked above 200 in the RPI (none would be ideal) and play as in many invitationals as you can.

(03-21-2014 11:38 AM)monarchoptimist Wrote:  

(03-16-2014 11:41 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  I think the reason ODU and Charlotte are down (and maybe WKU, too) is because of those football programs they fielded. I agree that they may be a bit overstated as basketball assets now (we'll know more in the future if their respective departments continue to short them), but, if we're going to talk about a fluid CUSA, then the CAA's fluidity has to also be heavily considered.

I won't speak for any of the other programs, but ODU's "down" basketball program has nothing to to with restarting football or not adequately funding the program. Instead it had everything to do with our Head Coach relapsing with an alcohol problem. That resulted in a 5 win season where he was fired. The team is still a work in progress but we're currently 17-17, a 12 game swing in the win column. ODU won't be down for long. The basketball issue has nothing to do with resources.

If that's the case, then awesome (that they are still committed to hoops). I've thought the A10 missed the bus on ODU. I know the CAA lost a good one.