(04-03-2014 02:49 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(04-03-2014 07:18 AM)Longhorn Wrote:  With Tulsa, Tulane and ECU leaving for the AAC, and the possible loss of UTEP to the [MWC], ...

But then why would the MWC be expanding? Unless that rests on an even less likely raid from someone further up the ladder.

If its "what could conceivably be in it for CUSA", we can draw up a hundred highly unlikely scenarios where there would be something in it for CUSA.

The more relevant question is what is there plausibly in it for CUSA, and "the CUSA is reacting to a pending loss of UTEP" doesn't seem like its a candidate for a plausible explanation. Sure, anything could, but if what is happening is out in high unlikely territory, there are just too many different possible but highly unlikely scenarios to ever sort them all out.

I could see CUSA losing UTEP and Rice (those are both ex-WAC members). UTEP really doesn't give the MW much of a foothold in Texas---UTEP and Rice or UTEP and UTSA give the MW a little more access to the high population recruiting grounds of Texas.

MWC could conceivably expand to ease travel burdens. The savings might be enough to offset the hit they take from reduced payouts per school.

(04-03-2014 05:39 PM)uakronkid Wrote:  MWC could conceivably expand to ease travel burdens. The savings might be enough to offset the hit they take from reduced payouts per school.

They could but while UTEP isn't too far from some current members any other Texas school they could try for would be quite far, however the MWC would like to get some footholds in a populous state like Texas but I doubt they have the leverage to get more than UTEP at this time.

(04-03-2014 12:45 PM)Longhorn Wrote:   Yes, posting in the morning before my coffee has kicked in.

You will lose every time!

(04-04-2014 12:29 AM)Sultan of Euphonistan Wrote:  

(04-03-2014 05:39 PM)uakronkid Wrote:  MWC could conceivably expand to ease travel burdens. The savings might be enough to offset the hit they take from reduced payouts per school.

They could but while UTEP isn't too far from some current members any other Texas school they could try for would be quite far, however the MWC would like to get some footholds in a populous state like Texas but I doubt they have the leverage to get more than UTEP at this time.

The schools in the MW, the exposure in the MW, and the money in the MW are all a cut above CUSA. Plus, the MW is a multi-bid basketball conference. I think any of the Texas schools would jump at the chance to move to that conference. UTSA did turn down the MW, but at the time, the MW was looking pretty rocky---no Boise...no SDSU---tied into a low paying contract and looking at losing 1-3 more schools to the Big East/AAC. Todays MW is a much stronger conference than the one UTSA passed on.

(04-04-2014 12:45 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-04-2014 12:29 AM)Sultan of Euphonistan Wrote:  ... but while UTEP isn't too far from some current members any other Texas school they could try for would be quite far, however the MWC would like to get some footholds in a populous state like Texas but I doubt they have the leverage to get more than UTEP at this time.

... Todays MW is a much stronger conference than the one UTSA passed on.

Yeah, I think its more a matter of interest than leverage ... there's nothing to indicate that the MWC isn't working as hoped for the way its presently set up.

There's this gap betwen "might conceivably" and "seems likely to", and I think MWC expansion at the moment is on the "might conceivably" side of the gap.

MWC is not expanding unless they can bring BY back into the fold.

(04-07-2014 11:56 PM)carolinaknights Wrote:  MWC is not expanding unless they can bring BY back into the fold.

And given BYU's TV contract, they aren't likely to join a conference unless their church leader's decide that joining a P5 conference is better for visibility, and they get an offer from the B12, and I can't peg either of those at better than 50% chance, so put that at less than 1 in 4.

I've read this thread with interest, although I don't see much discussion of entries or exits from our conference discussed on our Board. It is true that our Commissioner has talked about going to 16 in the past, but there doesn't seem to be any appetite for it from the Presidents. The argument made here that a 16 team league creates two tight divisions, each with a 7 game division, 1 game out of division arrangement could work and has some appeal (it would work better if they did 7+2, but not sure that works well in scheduling home games.) But I think most of us are comfortable with the 6+2 format, which is what holds in the 14 team structure. (This year we didn't have divisions in basketball and that worked well, although I think we are upping our conference games to 18 games next year, over our current 16.)

In short, while I've been surprised before, I don't see either C-USA going to 16 and I think the MAC is best served by staying with tradition at 12. For JMU...sorry guys.

(04-08-2014 07:16 AM)Cnelson203 Wrote:  In short, while I've been surprised before, I don't see either C-USA going to 16 and I think the MAC is best served by staying with tradition at 12. For JMU...sorry guys.

Since 1946, the MAC has spent a grand total of THREE years at twelve members, and each of those years were spent in talks with potential new members to go beyond where they were. It's hardly a tradition, and definitely not the norm. Since 1997, the MAC has been continually expanding past twelve, and then losing those expansion teams. They want to expand.

I would say that what the MAC wants are:
- STABILITY
- SIGNIFICANCE
- REVENUE

The three items above are somewhat interdependent and expansion could be an avenue to enhancing these goals. IMO, any program desiring to be a part of the MAC, should evaluate their own prospects for contributing to this. If I were JMU, I would be approaching either Delaware, or ODU and work on a joint proposal to the MAC as it is the most stable, long term situation for the 2 programs. I believe that the MAC would be open to this approach immediately. I personally, would love to see this happen.

(04-08-2014 10:26 AM)GFlash68 Wrote:  If I were JMU, I would be approaching either Delaware, or ODU and work on a joint proposal to the MAC as it is the most stable, long term situation for the 2 programs.

JMU missed their chance 2 years ago. Delaware isn't going anywhere and ODU isn't moving from CUSA to the MAC. Seriously, the CUSA exit fee is something like 7 million dollars. The differences between the MAC and CUSA, whatever they may be, aren't that significant.

If JMU ends up languishing in FCS for the next 5-10 it will be because their administration had their head in the sand.

(04-09-2014 09:56 AM)monarchoptimist Wrote:  JMU missed their chance 2 years ago. Delaware isn't going anywhere and ODU isn't moving from CUSA to the MAC. Seriously, the CUSA exit fee is something like 7 million dollars.

Is that a top-up exit fee on ODU for being a call-up, or the regular CUSA exit fee? I'd seen reported during the big Sunbelt>CUSA>American>ACC realignment that the regular CUSA exit fee is not a fixed amount, its indexed to the school's share of media revenue over the balance of the current media contract. If the current media contracts end 2015-2016, the exit fee might be substantially more modest for a school that is exiting at the end of the current contract ... which is, coincidentally, the end of the UMass affiliation period.

JMU likely retains their chance until the Sunbelt puts pen to paper to a different #12, so if JMU "misses out", it wouldn't be two years ago, it would be this period right now.

(04-09-2014 01:23 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(04-09-2014 09:56 AM)monarchoptimist Wrote:  JMU missed their chance 2 years ago. Delaware isn't going anywhere and ODU isn't moving from CUSA to the MAC. Seriously, the CUSA exit fee is something like 7 million dollars.

Is that a top-up exit fee on ODU for being a call-up, or the regular CUSA exit fee? I'd seen reported during the big Sunbelt>CUSA>American>ACC realignment that the regular CUSA exit fee is not a fixed amount, its indexed to the school's share of media revenue over the balance of the current media contract. If the current media contracts end 2015-2016, the exit fee might be substantially more modest for a school that is exiting at the end of the current contract ... which is, coincidentally, the end of the UMass affiliation period.

JMU likely retains their chance until the Sunbelt puts pen to paper to a different #12, so if JMU "misses out", it wouldn't be two years ago, it would be this period right now.

I got the $7 million number from here: http://hamptonroads.com/2013/02/odu-will...ckage-2013

No idea if it is correct. You may very well be right that just like the previously exiting teams the exit fee number may in actuality be far less depending on a number of factors. If the number could be drastically reduced it makes more sense but that is still a barrier for what would be mostly a lateral move. It would remain cheaper for ODU to simply push to expand CUSA and add JMU (something they are on record of trying to do).

You are right that JMU could still choose to go to the Sun Belt but it seems like their administration and fans have serious reservations about a potential move there. Even if in the end they make the move, many will view it as a failure because expectations were much higher. ODU tried to drag Delaware and JMU to FBS (whether CUSA or MAC) because it was believed, as written here, that a combination package would have offered a lot of value to either conference. But neither JMU or Delaware expressed interest and might have passed up their best opportunity to move up.

(04-09-2014 03:57 PM)monarchoptimist Wrote:  I got the $7 million number from here: http://hamptonroads.com/2013/02/odu-will...ckage-2013

No idea if it is correct. You may very well be right that just like the previously exiting teams the exit fee number may in actuality be far less depending on a number of factors.

Ah, I found it ... I did not remember it correctly, its not the media revenue for the balance of the contract, its $0.5m plus the media revenue for five years, which under the current contracts worked out to totals of about $6.6m, implying $1.22m media revenue per year.

If its written based on actual media revenue in the year of departure, then the actual exit fee would depend on what happens to the CUSA contract value in the next contracts.

(04-09-2014 07:49 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(04-09-2014 03:57 PM)monarchoptimist Wrote:  I got the $7 million number from here: http://hamptonroads.com/2013/02/odu-will...ckage-2013

No idea if it is correct. You may very well be right that just like the previously exiting teams the exit fee number may in actuality be far less depending on a number of factors.

Ah, I found it ... I did not remember it correctly, its not the media revenue for the balance of the contract, its $0.5m plus the media revenue for five years, which under the current contracts worked out to totals of about $6.6m, implying $1.22m media revenue per year.

If its written based on actual media revenue in the year of departure, then the actual exit fee would depend on what happens to the CUSA contract value in the next contracts.

That's close, but not quite correct. I used to have a link to the CUSA bylaws, but I have lost it. Bottom line is that the exit fee is 500K plus any DECREASE in media income over the following 5 years attributable to the exiting school. So, if the TV contract is unchanged, the exit fee is 500K. If the network drops the value of the contract 400K a year due to the defection of a given school---then that school would owe 400K X 5 yrs (2 million) plus the 500K base exit fee (a total of 2.5 million). The amount cannot exceed the total of a schools yearly payout in the year it exits---so a CUSA school could not owe more than they make annually in CUSA (currently 1 million per school). NCAA credits can be used to offset the exit fee.

The way I was told it works is that the school must pay 500K and deposit 5X its yearly earnings from the CUSA media contract into an escrow account when exiting. This account is then debited once a year over the next 5 years to replace any lost conference revenue from network media contract due to the schools exit. If there is no change---the money is left untouched each year. If there is money left in the account at the end of 5 years---that money is returned to the defecting school. Essentially, the exiting school is guaranteeing (within certain limits) that the remaining schools do not suffer from a decrease in income for a 5 year period after the departure.

EDIT---still cant find the link, but I did find the exact wording on an old CUSA thread...the key phrase is in bold

"If the member affords the Conference at least one calendar year prior notice of withdrawal but less than two calendar years
prior notice of withdrawal, the member shall pay the Conference a withdrawal fee of (i) $500,000 plus (ii) the aggregate
amount, if any, by which the television rights fees received by the remaining members of the Conference pursuant to any and
all Conference-level television broadcast and licensing agreements are reduced, as a result of the member's withdrawal, during
the five year period immediately subsequent to the effective date of the member's withdrawal."

(04-09-2014 08:59 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  EDIT---still cant find the link, but I did find the exact wording on an old CUSA thread...the key phrase is in bold

"If the member affords the Conference at least one calendar year prior notice of withdrawal but less than two calendar years
prior notice of withdrawal, the member shall pay the Conference a withdrawal fee of (i) $500,000 plus (ii) the aggregate
amount, if any, by which the television rights fees received by the remaining members of the Conference pursuant to any and
all Conference-level television broadcast and licensing agreements are reduced, as a result of the member's withdrawal, during
the five year period immediately subsequent to the effective date of the member's withdrawal."

OK ... what I was seeing was from sports reporting, and sports reporters are notoriously sloppy about reporting contractual details correctly.

Here's the bylaws: http://grfx.cstv.com/photos/schools/tuls...ndbook.pdf

In two years, its $400,000 and loss of media income over four years following withdrawal.
Three years, $300,000 and loss of media income over three years ... and so on with six years notice its free.

So maybe its a gamblers game ... if you think that the 2016 and on contract will be completed before July 1 2015, and will show a substantial reduction in revenue, you could wait, to avoid having the drop in revenue charged against you. If you think that the exit fees already paid will more than cover any drop in media revenue, announce early and insist that the exit fees of the previous schools already represented the loss that occurred, so your exist didn't end up costing the conference anything.

Also, as far as why the exit fees from Tulsa, Tulane and ECU are up against the maximum rather than reported as being likely much lower ... is that the amount of expected lost media revenue is decided by the Conference commissioner "acting in good faith". SO the commissioner probably said, "in good faith, the three of you going are each are losing us over $1m a year in media value, so pay the max".

(04-09-2014 10:21 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(04-09-2014 08:59 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  EDIT---still cant find the link, but I did find the exact wording on an old CUSA thread...the key phrase is in bold

"If the member affords the Conference at least one calendar year prior notice of withdrawal but less than two calendar years
prior notice of withdrawal, the member shall pay the Conference a withdrawal fee of (i) $500,000 plus (ii) the aggregate
amount, if any, by which the television rights fees received by the remaining members of the Conference pursuant to any and
all Conference-level television broadcast and licensing agreements are reduced, as a result of the member's withdrawal, during
the five year period immediately subsequent to the effective date of the member's withdrawal."

OK ... what I was seeing was from sports reporting, and sports reporters are notoriously sloppy about reporting contractual details correctly.

Here's the bylaws: http://grfx.cstv.com/photos/schools/tuls...ndbook.pdf

In two years, its $400,000 and loss of media income over four years following withdrawal.
Three years, $300,000 and loss of media income over three years ... and so on with six years notice its free.

So maybe its a gamblers game ... if you think that the 2016 and on contract will be completed before July 1 2015, and will show a substantial reduction in revenue, you could wait, to avoid having the drop in revenue charged against you. If you think that the exit fees already paid will more than cover any drop in media revenue, announce early and insist that the exit fees of the previous schools already represented the loss that occurred, so your exist didn't end up costing the conference anything.

Also, as far as why the exit fees from Tulsa, Tulane and ECU are up against the maximum rather than reported as being likely much lower ... is that the amount of expected lost media revenue is decided by the Conference commissioner "acting in good faith". SO the commissioner probably said, "in good faith, the three of you going are each are losing us over $1m a year in media value, so pay the max".

Right now, its really not an issue as the contract stayed the same (its just being divided among more teams because CUSA went to 14). However, in 2016 CUSA negotiates a new contract---so there could be some costs for the exiting teams. Also, its interesting---based on this formula---it appears the best strategy is to exit with other teams so any affect on the conference contract is split among multiple exiting members. To me, this one of the few exit fees that I've seen that seems to be make a reasonable effort to reflect the actual damages caused by a schools exit.

(04-09-2014 10:21 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  Here's the bylaws: http://grfx.cstv.com/photos/schools/tuls...ndbook.pdf

WOW! I did not know that the by laws were that long!

How do you get a copy of the MACS? I am curious now.

Great find!

(04-10-2014 01:02 AM)lance99 Wrote:  

(04-09-2014 10:21 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  Here's the bylaws: http://grfx.cstv.com/photos/schools/tuls...ndbook.pdf

WOW! I did not know that the by laws were that long!

How do you get a copy of the MACS? I am curious now.

I just googled it ~ it was attackcoog who mentioned that it was out there somewhere, or I would have still been trying to get clues in sloppy reporting by sports reporters.

Conference bylaws can get out due to a FOIA request or as part of discovery in a legal action, but the version that is readily available is not always current. For instance, googling for Mid-American Conference bylaws turns up a 2002-2003 version, so could well have been modified on various points since then:
http://grfx.cstv.com/photos/schools/mac/...bylaws.pdf