Football is important, but IMO this is why fixing the RPI and getting more teams in the NCAA Tournament is so important. You can't win games if you're not in the tournament playing them. And you don't get paid if you not playing them.

2009 - $9 Million
2010 - $8.4 M
2011 - $6.9 M
2012 - $5.1 M
2013 - $4.4 M (distributed this month)
2014* - $2.7 M (distributed in 2015)

The 2013 total will be paid out later this month. The 2014 distribution will be paid out in April of 2015. Keep in mind this does not include grant-in aid or other subsidies the NCAA provides. This is purely from the basketball fund based on NCAA Tournament units (i.e performance).

By my calculations, 2015 will be significantly worse, because Memphis' title run units will fall off the six-year rolling calculation.

Now that we have the ond-bid one and done from Tulsa's appearance this season that will replace Memphis' five units, the payout next year can be calculated as $2,779.282.**

By contrast UConn just earned the AAC $7.5 million all by itself over the next six years with its trip to the Final Four. With all the units and money left behind by Syracuse, Pitt, etc., its easy to see why schools would prefer the AAC over C-USA. Just being honest here folks.

IMO, and for that reason basketball (in particular scheduling, RPI and getting better) is the single most important issue that should be on the table right now. This is something that we can actually control our own destiny on (and stop making excuses). There's no reason why this league can't do what the A10 has done.

*Figures are not an estimate. Based on actual distributions expected as a result of the NCAA's revenue model.

** Units by year...
3 units x $210,000 (09)
2 units x $222,206 (10)
2 units x $239,664 (11)
2 units x $242,204 (12)
2 units x $245,514 (13)
1 unit x $250,106 (14)

ABSOLUTELY CORRECT !!!

Quote:There's no reason why this league can't do what the A10 has done.

Your post makes good points, and to me, this should be our goal as a conference. The A-10 does not have substantially more resources than CUSA except for the NCAA credits that they have earned over the past 10 years.

When Charlotte entered the A-10, the conference had experienced some recent multi-bid seasons but was basically rebuilding. I would love to see CUSA make the following progress:

A-10 NCAA Tournament Bids by Year:
2005 - 1
2006 - 2
2007 - 2
2008 - 3
2009 - 3
2010 - 3
2011 - 3
2012 - 4
2013 - 5
2014 - 6

Can it happen here? Yes, but it takes dedication, planning and commitment by all member institutions.

For instance, OOC games for the bottom three A-10 teams included marque games against the following teams, with no Non-D1 regular season opponents:
Duquesne (Finished 11th): WVA, Pittsburg, Penn State
George Mason (Finished 12th): Oklahoma & #17 Iowa State
Fordam (Perennial Bottom Feeders): Syracuse

Agreed. What is a reasonable time frame for CUSA to become a consistent multi-bid league (not dependent upon champ game upsets)? Which teams are more likely to be at large picks? I'll try to dig up this info.

Okay, going back 10 years, here is a list of at large bids earned by current CUSA teams. I can go back farther, but 10 years should yield enough data to be significant and relevant.

UAB 4 '04,'05,'06,'11
UNCC 2 '04,'05
UTEP 2 '04,'10
ODU 1 '07
USM 1 '12
MTSU 1 '13

I hope I didn't miss anybody. It should also be noted that just b/c a team received an automatic doesn't necessarily mean they couldn't have received an at large in a given year. However, if past behavior is an indicator of future performance, this is where at large bids are most likely to come from...+/-

Scheduling needs to be addressed ASAP. I know there's been some disagreement on the board recently concerning where the responsibility lies. I don't have the answers but think the conference can aid by enforcing policy and leaning on Fox to arrange made for TV match ups.

Wanna be a multi-bid league? Win big games early against teams that do well in power conferences, then don't lose to crap teams in conference.

USM got blown out by Louisville. If it's a close game, we're probably in the tournament. When you get blown out, it looks like you can't hang with the big boys.

La Tech beat OK, but then lost to ECU. That can't happen.

Charlotte, who had great OOC wins, imploded on themselves in conference and in some OOC games that should have been wins.

UAB did the same as Charlotte.


Then you get teams like Tulsa and UTEP who do awful OOC, then come in and do fantastic in conference. That makes us look bad as well.

(04-08-2014 01:17 PM)Highflying49er Wrote:  

Quote:There's no reason why this league can't do what the A10 has done.

Your post makes good points, and to me, this should be our goal as a conference. The A-10 does not have substantially more resources than CUSA except for the NCAA credits that they have earned over the past 10 years.

When Charlotte entered the A-10, the conference had experienced some recent multi-bid seasons but was basically rebuilding. I would love to see CUSA make the following progress:

A-10 NCAA Tournament Bids by Year:
2005 - 1
2006 - 2
2007 - 2
2008 - 3
2009 - 3
2010 - 3
2011 - 3
2012 - 4
2013 - 5
2014 - 6

Can it happen here? Yes, but it takes dedication, planning and commitment by all member institutions.

For instance, OOC games for the bottom three A-10 teams included marque games against the following teams, with no Non-D1 regular season opponents:
Duquesne (Finished 11th): WVA, Pittsburg, Penn State
George Mason (Finished 12th): Oklahoma & #17 Iowa State
Fordam (Perennial Bottom Feeders): Syracuse

Basically, once you become a 2-bid league, everyone benefits from the stronger conference schedule. it becomes easier to get the 3rd bid---then the 4rth--and so on.

(04-08-2014 01:20 PM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  Agreed. What is a reasonable time frame for CUSA to become a consistent multi-bid league (not dependent upon champ game upsets)? Which teams are more likely to be at large picks? I'll try to dig up this info.

Okay, going back 10 years, here is a list of at large bids earned by current CUSA teams. I can go back farther, but 10 years should yield enough data to be significant and relevant.

UAB 4 '04,'05,'06,'11
UNCC 2 '04,'05
UTEP 2 '04,'10
ODU 1 '07
USM 1 '12
MTSU 1 '13

I hope I didn't miss anybody. It should also be noted that just b/c a team received an automatic doesn't necessarily mean they couldn't have received an at large in a given year. However, if past behavior is an indicator of future performance, this is where at large bids are most likely to come from...+/-

Scheduling needs to be addressed ASAP. I know there's been some disagreement on the board recently concerning where the responsibility lies. I don't have the answers but think the conference can aid by enforcing policy and leaning on Fox to arrange made for TV match ups.

We went to the tourney in 2004 and 2005

The OP's premise is correct. It requires smart OOC scheduling and as was mentioned winning against good OOC competition. One of the things the A10 has done well is in creating, and more importantly, enforcing conference-wide scheduling guidelines. I saw an interview with the A10 commissioner recently in which she made an off-hand comment that the scheduling rules and enforcement haven't always been popular with some A10 members, but they've been effective. The one note of caution I would mention is that the A10 had a median of 3.15 bids from 1990 - 2004. Getting to 3 bids in '08 was a return to a historical norm for the conference. The last two years are outliers and are not likely to be repeated soon. IIRC the late '90s was the last time the A10 had 5 bids prior to 2013.

I don't know how much the A10's 75/25 NCAA unit distribution model has contributed to motivating members to commit to improving their programs, but that is the other distinctive feature of the A10's approach.

ODU went 4 times since 04.

05,07,10,11.

(04-08-2014 01:43 PM)EagNBran Wrote:  Wanna be a multi-bid league? Win big games early against teams that do well in power conferences, then don't lose to crap teams in conference.

USM got blown out by Louisville. If it's a close game, we're probably in the tournament. When you get blown out, it looks like you can't hang with the big boys.

La Tech beat OK, but then lost to ECU. That can't happen.

Charlotte, who had great OOC wins, imploded on themselves in conference and in some OOC games that should have been wins.

UAB did the same as Charlotte.


Then you get teams like Tulsa and UTEP who do awful OOC, then come in and do fantastic in conference. That makes us look bad as well.

Right... and to expand upon that, consider that any given year a conference will have teams start strong but crap the bed in conference play, and those that preform better as Conference play begins. So the conference, to cover all bases, should require that all teams play as strong an OOC schedule as possible, so that no matter who finishes in the top 25% of the league, they also have a reputable OOC schedule to reinforce their case for an at-large. If Duquesne can land 3 BCS power conference teams in it's schedule, then nearly all CUSA teams should as well.

(04-08-2014 02:31 PM)DxfanMiner Wrote:  

(04-08-2014 01:20 PM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  Agreed. What is a reasonable time frame for CUSA to become a consistent multi-bid league (not dependent upon champ game upsets)? Which teams are more likely to be at large picks? I'll try to dig up this info.

Okay, going back 10 years, here is a list of at large bids earned by current CUSA teams. I can go back farther, but 10 years should yield enough data to be significant and relevant.

UAB 4 '04,'05,'06,'11
UNCC 2 '04,'05
UTEP 2 '04,'10
ODU 1 '07
USM 1 '12
MTSU 1 '13

I hope I didn't miss anybody. It should also be noted that just b/c a team received an automatic doesn't necessarily mean they couldn't have received an at large in a given year. However, if past behavior is an indicator of future performance, this is where at large bids are most likely to come from...+/-

Scheduling needs to be addressed ASAP. I know there's been some disagreement on the board recently concerning where the responsibility lies. I don't have the answers but think the conference can aid by enforcing policy and leaning on Fox to arrange made for TV match ups.

We went to the tourney in 2004 and 2005

Right, the Miners won the conference tourney and got the automatic in '05. I was trying to compare at large bids based on wiki info which may or may not be 100%. My thought process, which may be off base is to identify the likely suspects for at large bids and estimate a realistic goal going forward. I realize that past data doesn't guarantee future results or account for the current state of a program. But, it can be a starting point.

(04-08-2014 01:20 PM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  Agreed. What is a reasonable time frame for CUSA to become a consistent multi-bid league (not dependent upon champ game upsets)? Which teams are more likely to be at large picks? I'll try to dig up this info.

Okay, going back 10 years, here is a list of at large bids earned by current CUSA teams. I can go back farther, but 10 years should yield enough data to be significant and relevant.

UAB 4 '04,'05,'06,'11
UNCC 2 '04,'05
UTEP 2 '04,'10
ODU 1 '07
USM 1 '12
MTSU 1 '13

I hope I didn't miss anybody. It should also be noted that just b/c a team received an automatic doesn't necessarily mean they couldn't have received an at large in a given year. However, if past behavior is an indicator of future performance, this is where at large bids are most likely to come from...+/-

Scheduling needs to be addressed ASAP. I know there's been some disagreement on the board recently concerning where the responsibility lies. I don't have the answers but think the conference can aid by enforcing policy and leaning on Fox to arrange made for TV match ups.

FYI.

(04-08-2014 12:33 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  Football is important, but IMO this is why fixing the RPI and getting more teams in the NCAA Tournament is so important. You can't win games if you're not in the tournament playing them. And you don't get paid if you not playing them.

2009 - $9 Million
2010 - $8.4 M
2011 - $6.9 M
2012 - $5.1 M
2013 - $4.4 M (distributed this month)
2014* - $2.7 M (distributed in 2015)

The 2013 total will be paid out later this month. The 2014 distribution will be paid out in April of 2015. Keep in mind this does not include grant-in aid or other subsidies the NCAA provides. This is purely from the basketball fund based on NCAA Tournament units (i.e performance).

By my calculations, 2015 will be significantly worse, because Memphis' title run units will fall off the six-year rolling calculation.

Now that we have the ond-bid one and done from Tulsa's appearance this season that will replace Memphis' five units, the payout next year can be calculated as $2,779.282.**

By contrast UConn just earned the AAC $7.5 million all by itself over the next six years with its trip to the Final Four. With all the units and money left behind by Syracuse, Pitt, etc., its easy to see why schools would prefer the AAC over C-USA. Just being honest here folks.

IMO, and for that reason basketball (in particular scheduling, RPI and getting better) is the single most important issue that should be on the table right now. This is something that we can actually control our own destiny on (and stop making excuses). There's no reason why this league can't do what the A10 has done.

*Figures are not an estimate. Based on actual distributions expected as a result of the NCAA's revenue model.

** Units by year...
3 units x $210,000 (09)
2 units x $222,206 (10)
2 units x $239,664 (11)
2 units x $242,204 (12)
2 units x $245,514 (13)
1 unit x $250,106 (14)

I am not trying to bring up bad feelings because the Memphis fans we have here seem like good people, but once their run was vacated does the NCAA pay out any more money for them?

(04-08-2014 08:53 PM)Nugget49er Wrote:  I am not trying to bring up bad feelings because the Memphis fans we have here seem like good people, but once their run was vacated does the NCAA pay out any more money for them?

It is my understanding that the distributions from the NCAA remained with the conference and Memphis had to return the money from that season to the league. So, from a Memphis perspective they lost it. From a conference perspective the distributions remained in tact.

The Basketball aspect is definitely looking positive for C-USA though. Charlotte was a steal, and USM is still a prominent name. Just gotta hope UAB does its thing and win out

(04-08-2014 03:00 PM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  

(04-08-2014 02:31 PM)DxfanMiner Wrote:  

(04-08-2014 01:20 PM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  Agreed. What is a reasonable time frame for CUSA to become a consistent multi-bid league (not dependent upon champ game upsets)? Which teams are more likely to be at large picks? I'll try to dig up this info.

Okay, going back 10 years, here is a list of at large bids earned by current CUSA teams. I can go back farther, but 10 years should yield enough data to be significant and relevant.

UAB 4 '04,'05,'06,'11
UNCC 2 '04,'05
UTEP 2 '04,'10
ODU 1 '07
USM 1 '12
MTSU 1 '13

I hope I didn't miss anybody. It should also be noted that just b/c a team received an automatic doesn't necessarily mean they couldn't have received an at large in a given year. However, if past behavior is an indicator of future performance, this is where at large bids are most likely to come from...+/-

Scheduling needs to be addressed ASAP. I know there's been some disagreement on the board recently concerning where the responsibility lies. I don't have the answers but think the conference can aid by enforcing policy and leaning on Fox to arrange made for TV match ups.

We went to the tourney in 2004 and 2005

Right, the Miners won the conference tourney and got the automatic in '05. I was trying to compare at large bids based on wiki info which may or may not be 100%. My thought process, which may be off base is to identify the likely suspects for at large bids and estimate a realistic goal going forward. I realize that past data doesn't guarantee future results or account for the current state of a program. But, it can be a starting point.

Here's where your logic gets a little flawed...

Some times a school that won the automatic bid would have also been a at large team. Western had a few years like that.

A conference must start at the bottom if you want to use the RPI to work for you. If you have a very weak bottom of the conference it makes it hard for teams at the top stand out. Because when you play 6 to 8 conference games that will drop your RPI anywhere from 5 to 15 spots just by playing the game. A couple more OOC wins even if they come against sub 300 RPI teams by the schools in the bottom of the conference will limit that drop.

That is a lot easier to change than than the top of the conference. Of course that needs some work also but no matter what you do at the top...

if the bottom is bad enough it will still drag you down.

(04-09-2014 04:54 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(04-08-2014 03:00 PM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  

(04-08-2014 02:31 PM)DxfanMiner Wrote:  

(04-08-2014 01:20 PM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  Agreed. What is a reasonable time frame for CUSA to become a consistent multi-bid league (not dependent upon champ game upsets)? Which teams are more likely to be at large picks? I'll try to dig up this info.

Okay, going back 10 years, here is a list of at large bids earned by current CUSA teams. I can go back farther, but 10 years should yield enough data to be significant and relevant.

UAB 4 '04,'05,'06,'11
UNCC 2 '04,'05
UTEP 2 '04,'10
ODU 1 '07
USM 1 '12
MTSU 1 '13

I hope I didn't miss anybody. It should also be noted that just b/c a team received an automatic doesn't necessarily mean they couldn't have received an at large in a given year. However, if past behavior is an indicator of future performance, this is where at large bids are most likely to come from...+/-

Scheduling needs to be addressed ASAP. I know there's been some disagreement on the board recently concerning where the responsibility lies. I don't have the answers but think the conference can aid by enforcing policy and leaning on Fox to arrange made for TV match ups.

We went to the tourney in 2004 and 2005

Right, the Miners won the conference tourney and got the automatic in '05. I was trying to compare at large bids based on wiki info which may or may not be 100%. My thought process, which may be off base is to identify the likely suspects for at large bids and estimate a realistic goal going forward. I realize that past data doesn't guarantee future results or account for the current state of a program. But, it can be a starting point.

Here's where your logic gets a little flawed...

Some times a school that won the automatic bid would have also been a at large team. Western had a few years like that.

If you want an accurate picture you could also look at NCAA tournament seeding in years auto-bids were gained. But that requires more work and still isn't an exact measure.

(04-09-2014 04:54 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(04-08-2014 03:00 PM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  

(04-08-2014 02:31 PM)DxfanMiner Wrote:  

(04-08-2014 01:20 PM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  Agreed. What is a reasonable time frame for CUSA to become a consistent multi-bid league (not dependent upon champ game upsets)? Which teams are more likely to be at large picks? I'll try to dig up this info.

Okay, going back 10 years, here is a list of at large bids earned by current CUSA teams. I can go back farther, but 10 years should yield enough data to be significant and relevant.

UAB 4 '04,'05,'06,'11
UNCC 2 '04,'05
UTEP 2 '04,'10
ODU 1 '07
USM 1 '12
MTSU 1 '13

I hope I didn't miss anybody. It should also be noted that just b/c a team received an automatic doesn't necessarily mean they couldn't have received an at large in a given year. However, if past behavior is an indicator of future performance, this is where at large bids are most likely to come from...+/-

Scheduling needs to be addressed ASAP. I know there's been some disagreement on the board recently concerning where the responsibility lies. I don't have the answers but think the conference can aid by enforcing policy and leaning on Fox to arrange made for TV match ups.

We went to the tourney in 2004 and 2005

Right, the Miners won the conference tourney and got the automatic in '05. I was trying to compare at large bids based on wiki info which may or may not be 100%. My thought process, which may be off base is to identify the likely suspects for at large bids and estimate a realistic goal going forward. I realize that past data doesn't guarantee future results or account for the current state of a program. But, it can be a starting point.

Here's where your logic gets a little flawed...

Some times a school that won the automatic bid would have also been a at large team. Western had a few years like that.

A conference must start at the bottom if you want to use the RPI to work for you. If you have a very weak bottom of the conference it makes it hard for teams at the top stand out. Because when you play 6 to 8 conference games that will drop your RPI anywhere from 5 to 15 spots just by playing the game. A couple more OOC wins even if they come against sub 300 RPI teams by the schools in the bottom of the conference will limit that drop.

That is a lot easier to change than than the top of the conference. Of course that needs some work also but no matter what you do at the top...

if the bottom is bad enough it will still drag you down.

You look at the top conferences in the RPI and they combined to lose less than 40 games in their entire OOC slate. The bottom 5 lost more than that.

(04-09-2014 05:13 PM)monarchoptimist Wrote:  

(04-09-2014 04:54 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(04-08-2014 03:00 PM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  

(04-08-2014 02:31 PM)DxfanMiner Wrote:  

(04-08-2014 01:20 PM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  Agreed. What is a reasonable time frame for CUSA to become a consistent multi-bid league (not dependent upon champ game upsets)? Which teams are more likely to be at large picks? I'll try to dig up this info.

Okay, going back 10 years, here is a list of at large bids earned by current CUSA teams. I can go back farther, but 10 years should yield enough data to be significant and relevant.

UAB 4 '04,'05,'06,'11
UNCC 2 '04,'05
UTEP 2 '04,'10
ODU 1 '07
USM 1 '12
MTSU 1 '13

I hope I didn't miss anybody. It should also be noted that just b/c a team received an automatic doesn't necessarily mean they couldn't have received an at large in a given year. However, if past behavior is an indicator of future performance, this is where at large bids are most likely to come from...+/-

Scheduling needs to be addressed ASAP. I know there's been some disagreement on the board recently concerning where the responsibility lies. I don't have the answers but think the conference can aid by enforcing policy and leaning on Fox to arrange made for TV match ups.

We went to the tourney in 2004 and 2005

Right, the Miners won the conference tourney and got the automatic in '05. I was trying to compare at large bids based on wiki info which may or may not be 100%. My thought process, which may be off base is to identify the likely suspects for at large bids and estimate a realistic goal going forward. I realize that past data doesn't guarantee future results or account for the current state of a program. But, it can be a starting point.

Here's where your logic gets a little flawed...

Some times a school that won the automatic bid would have also been a at large team. Western had a few years like that.

If you want an accurate picture you could also look at NCAA tournament seeding in years auto-bids were gained. But that requires more work and still isn't an exact measure.

Yep, and what I started to do, then stopped b/c it wasn't material for the time frame...after a VERY QUICK check. However, I fully acknowledge in the OP that this could be the case...thinking Gonzaga or even Memphis 2.0 scenarios. It's still a valid point, and I'm not well versed enough in all the conferences to judge who would and wouldn't have gotten an at large...merely trying to predict the pool and time frame. All suggestions are welcome. :)