(07-12-2014 07:02 PM)Seminole Indian Wrote:  

(07-12-2014 04:15 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-12-2014 02:57 PM)Seminole Indian Wrote:  

(07-12-2014 02:30 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-12-2014 11:02 AM)Seminole Indian Wrote:  We had this same discussion last year, and CUSA again finished as the worse FBS Conference in football. Remember the base line for this year is the SBC was the top non-aq last year and CUSA the worse, and that is the baseline.

I think the SBC could be a little off this year. UL, ArSt, USA should be as good maybe better, ULM maybe a little off, and the other returning SBC members should, especially Troy, and TxSt , improve.

GaSo and ApSt, play pretty good football even when they are bad, and I think Idaho and NMSU will be better than people think.

Even though I think some CUSA teams, especially La Tech and USM will show significant improvement, CUSA will be weaker.

Adding a decent WKU does not offset their loses, and they have to many programs that are just bad in football period, and IMO will be the worse FBS conference in football most years going forward.

Hmm. AAC and CUSA are now shadows of their former selves and the Sunbelt gained ground by adding the two worst programs in FBS along with multiple startup/FCS programs......

Yes, looking just at the last couple of years---it looks like the strong SB programs stayed behind---but the fact is, looking longer term, the strongest historical programs left the Sunbelt. UL-L and Arky State have done well the last few years and will be the SB bell cows if they can continue to perform at that level---but many of the programs that left have a history of performing well and likely will perform well in the future. The new programs coming in are not likely to match them for some time. All the G5's took hits. The MW probably took the least damage since 2011. I think its a special pair of rose colored glasses that allows one to think the Sunbelt alone is somehow different in realignment---having special powers that allow it to add lesser parts and get better.

All I know is the SBC was without a doubt at the bottom of the FBS food chain in football when alignment started and came out of it as the top non-aq last year, after finishing 2nd the year before.

IMO it was a result of keeping their best teams, and sheading a few under performers in football, who were picked up by CUSA.

Don't think there are very many in the national media that don't think GaSo, or AppSt will not exceed any of the departing SBC teams when it comes to football, and sooner rather than later. TxSt also has solid potential.

I focus on teams and all the G5's have some good teams, and some bad teams, and there are only a handful of standouts in G5.

Right now I agree the SBC does not have a real standout team, but I just think they have more of the good ones and fewer of the bad ones going forward than CUSA, and the MAC.

FBS is different than FCS. The same thing that makes you successful at one doesn't make you successful at the other. UCF and UConn basically did nothing in FCS. Idaho was a much better program than Boise when they moved up.

I think the fact that the SBC for years was far and away the worst FBS conference should clear those rose colored glasses about how long it takes to transition to FBS. Rare is the Marshall who comes right up and competes. And they did it with a lot of FBS transfers from when they were still in FCS. More typical are schools that were terrible at first-FIU, FAU, WKU, MTSU, ULM, Idaho, to name a few familiar to Sun Belt fans.

I'm expecting GaSo and AppSt to struggle a little, but still expect the SBC to be better than CUSA, and maybe the MAC this year.

One thing you will notice is that the national media has made it known that they expect both to excel at the FBS level. Not get by mind you, but excel. They are indifferent about all the other FCS call-ups but not these two. Right or wrong, they made themselves special, and their move up caught the national medias attention, as it should.

Again we have discussed the direction this thing was going for the last 2-3 years as far as CUSA, and guess what, they are right where they put themselves....the worse FBS Conference in college football.

CUSA was the worse FBS Conference last year, and the year before and should be worse this year. They lose more than they gain this year, and will take another hit next year. Think someone else has on rose colored glasses.

Again, I'm not that concerned about conferences, and CUSA does have some good teams. How good is your team is all that matters going forward, not what G5 Conference you are in. Does not matter you are G5, and either you win or you are invisible. That is the reality of college football in the post BCS era for all schools, and while it is taking some longer than others to grasp that, they will.

CUSA will be about the same. The Sun Belt will be a lot worse.
Georgia Southern and Appalachian St. are two of the 3 most successful FCS programs of all time. That still doesn't mean they will succeed at the next level. North Carolina is crowded with schools. Georgia Southern has the southern half of talent laden Georgia to themselves, but they are in the middle of nowhere and might not be able to generate the revenue to compete well.

Appalachian St. was 4-8 in FCS last year, so they won't be blowing anyone away. Georgia Southern was only 7-4, not as good as typical. Neither is coming up at a peak. And last year's newbie, Georgia St., was one of the worst teams in FBS or FCS. And the Sun Belt is also adding Idaho (1-11) and New Mexico St. (2-10).

However the WAC demonstrated that having a cadre of really bad schools can result in good performance in the formula used to distribute money.

(07-14-2014 09:19 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-12-2014 07:02 PM)Seminole Indian Wrote:  

(07-12-2014 04:15 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-12-2014 02:57 PM)Seminole Indian Wrote:  

(07-12-2014 02:30 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Hmm. AAC and CUSA are now shadows of their former selves and the Sunbelt gained ground by adding the two worst programs in FBS along with multiple startup/FCS programs......

Yes, looking just at the last couple of years---it looks like the strong SB programs stayed behind---but the fact is, looking longer term, the strongest historical programs left the Sunbelt. UL-L and Arky State have done well the last few years and will be the SB bell cows if they can continue to perform at that level---but many of the programs that left have a history of performing well and likely will perform well in the future. The new programs coming in are not likely to match them for some time. All the G5's took hits. The MW probably took the least damage since 2011. I think its a special pair of rose colored glasses that allows one to think the Sunbelt alone is somehow different in realignment---having special powers that allow it to add lesser parts and get better.

All I know is the SBC was without a doubt at the bottom of the FBS food chain in football when alignment started and came out of it as the top non-aq last year, after finishing 2nd the year before.

IMO it was a result of keeping their best teams, and sheading a few under performers in football, who were picked up by CUSA.

Don't think there are very many in the national media that don't think GaSo, or AppSt will not exceed any of the departing SBC teams when it comes to football, and sooner rather than later. TxSt also has solid potential.

I focus on teams and all the G5's have some good teams, and some bad teams, and there are only a handful of standouts in G5.

Right now I agree the SBC does not have a real standout team, but I just think they have more of the good ones and fewer of the bad ones going forward than CUSA, and the MAC.

FBS is different than FCS. The same thing that makes you successful at one doesn't make you successful at the other. UCF and UConn basically did nothing in FCS. Idaho was a much better program than Boise when they moved up.

I think the fact that the SBC for years was far and away the worst FBS conference should clear those rose colored glasses about how long it takes to transition to FBS. Rare is the Marshall who comes right up and competes. And they did it with a lot of FBS transfers from when they were still in FCS. More typical are schools that were terrible at first-FIU, FAU, WKU, MTSU, ULM, Idaho, to name a few familiar to Sun Belt fans.

I'm expecting GaSo and AppSt to struggle a little, but still expect the SBC to be better than CUSA, and maybe the MAC this year.

One thing you will notice is that the national media has made it known that they expect both to excel at the FBS level. Not get by mind you, but excel. They are indifferent about all the other FCS call-ups but not these two. Right or wrong, they made themselves special, and their move up caught the national medias attention, as it should.

Again we have discussed the direction this thing was going for the last 2-3 years as far as CUSA, and guess what, they are right where they put themselves....the worse FBS Conference in college football.

CUSA was the worse FBS Conference last year, and the year before and should be worse this year. They lose more than they gain this year, and will take another hit next year. Think someone else has on rose colored glasses.

Again, I'm not that concerned about conferences, and CUSA does have some good teams. How good is your team is all that matters going forward, not what G5 Conference you are in. Does not matter you are G5, and either you win or you are invisible. That is the reality of college football in the post BCS era for all schools, and while it is taking some longer than others to grasp that, they will.

CUSA will be about the same. The Sun Belt will be a lot worse.
Georgia Southern and Appalachian St. are two of the 3 most successful FCS programs of all time. That still doesn't mean they will succeed at the next level. North Carolina is crowded with schools. Georgia Southern has the southern half of talent laden Georgia to themselves, but they are in the middle of nowhere and might not be able to generate the revenue to compete well.

Appalachian St. was 4-8 in FCS last year, so they won't be blowing anyone away. Georgia Southern was only 7-4, not as good as typical. Neither is coming up at a peak. And last year's newbie, Georgia St., was one of the worst teams in FBS or FCS. And the Sun Belt is also adding Idaho (1-11) and New Mexico St. (2-10).

Think you got that backward.

Correct me but CUSA loses Tulsa, Tulane, Houston and ECU, right? Adds WKU, and Old Dominion, Right. Hardly an even swap, and has to add Charlotte next year(you guys are suckers for bad football teams).

SBC loses WKU, adds AppSt, GaSo, Idaho and NMSU, right. Because almost every returning member expects to be as good or better than last year, and even bad football by AppSt, and GaSt standards is good football to most of the CUSA additions , I say there is a chance they might slip a little, but not to the new CUSA standards.

Remember the baseline is CUSA was the worse non-aq Conference last year and the year before, the SBC best last year and 2nd best the year before, and not the imaginary rankings CUSA supporters have been trying to create the last few years on this board.

I have however decided I like to many CUSA teams to bash their Conference, which is a great fit for most of them. I will also add I did not know about the BCS non-aq conference ratings or whatever, until I read about it on AstateNation, so normally I would have had to use one of the other ratings which seem to put the SBC at the bottom by default.

(07-13-2014 03:15 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(07-12-2014 07:57 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(07-11-2014 04:14 PM)Tallgrass Wrote:  It is sad to see the inability of the NonBCS to organize and speak with one strong voice against all the barriers thrown up against them by BCS.

I'm inclined to share that view, as well.

Doesn't change the facts about C-USA's media-exposure and -revenues. The article linked in the OP is depressing to SDSU fans and the outlook for fans of teams in C-USA, MAC, and Sun Belt is even worse.

I think this thread speaks to the reality. G5 will never cooperate and therefore never have the leverage to generate a decent deal. Trying to be mini-SEC or mini-B12 will always produce mini results.

Wise words from arkstfan.

Sixteen years or so after the BCS-cartel was created, I think it's obvious to everyone (everyone who is paying attention) that the have-not conferences are never going to really cooperate in any consistent, systematic way. I regret that, I really do. But there it is.

I doubt CUSA will take a big hit next go round, I also would be surprised to see much of an increase. I do think it is good you have a couple of years to regroup before the deal comes up, rather than like AAC had to do make a new deal while in major upheaval.

(07-13-2014 03:15 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(07-12-2014 07:57 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(07-11-2014 04:14 PM)Tallgrass Wrote:  It is sad to see the inability of the NonBCS to organize and speak with one strong voice against all the barriers thrown up against them by BCS.

I'm inclined to share that view, as well.

Doesn't change the facts about C-USA's media-exposure and -revenues. The article linked in the OP is depressing to SDSU fans and the outlook for fans of teams in C-USA, MAC, and Sun Belt is even worse.

I think this thread speaks to the reality. G5 will never cooperate and therefore never have the leverage to generate a decent deal. Trying to be mini-SEC or mini-B12 will always produce mini results.

See I disagree with the "never cooperate". Let's not forget that the MWC and C-USA tried to do a co-operation package that was shot down by the NCAA, while the Big East was blasting it because (at the time), they were named one of the P6.

Note that once the Big East fell apart and became a member of the not-Power5, there were rumblings (at least among fans) that they need to try to work a deal with the MWC.

So the groundwork can be laid for co-operation, it's just a case of getting it to everyone's liking.

(07-11-2014 10:02 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  CUSA has a bowl in Hawai'i and another in the Bahamas. Two bowls that will be likely losers for the league.

As far as TV goes, I don't see a CUSA minus ECU, Tulsa, Houston, and UCF doing better than previously.

The bowl games may be "losers" because schools lose money on the trips but the bowl game destinations may attract athletes to the school.

In addition, revenue is not static. A school may make up losing bowl revenue with ticket sales to season tickets or donations, etc.

(07-14-2014 02:19 PM)Seminole Indian Wrote:  Correct me but CUSA loses Tulsa, Tulane, Houston and ECU, right? Adds WKU, and Old Dominion, Right. Hardly an even swap, and has to add Charlotte next year(you guys are suckers for bad football teams).

Geez, give us a chance.

BTW, Charlotte is a founding member of the original CUSA. So, we're just coming back home now that we have football.

(07-15-2014 06:22 AM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(07-13-2014 03:15 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(07-12-2014 07:57 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(07-11-2014 04:14 PM)Tallgrass Wrote:  It is sad to see the inability of the NonBCS to organize and speak with one strong voice against all the barriers thrown up against them by BCS.

I'm inclined to share that view, as well.

Doesn't change the facts about C-USA's media-exposure and -revenues. The article linked in the OP is depressing to SDSU fans and the outlook for fans of teams in C-USA, MAC, and Sun Belt is even worse.

I think this thread speaks to the reality. G5 will never cooperate and therefore never have the leverage to generate a decent deal. Trying to be mini-SEC or mini-B12 will always produce mini results.

See I disagree with the "never cooperate". Let's not forget that the MWC and C-USA tried to do a co-operation package that was shot down by the NCAA, while the Big East was blasting it because (at the time), they were named one of the P6.

Note that once the Big East fell apart and became a member of the not-Power5, there were rumblings (at least among fans) that they need to try to work a deal with the MWC.

So the groundwork can be laid for co-operation, it's just a case of getting it to everyone's liking.

Well anyone with a passing familarity with the NCAA rule book understood that the Alliance wasn't going to pass muster without a wholesale re-writing of the rules.

Further let's not forget that before the Alliance proposal, CUSA and MWC balked at the idea of starting in 2010 having a guaranteed buster slot that would be determined by the two highest ranking non-AQ champs meeting in a made for TV event.

Nor should one forget that ahead of the signing of the 2010-13 contract that MWC offered its own counter-BCS proposal that left out CUSA, MAC, SBC, and WAC and made MWC a full partner while the other four would have an even harder path than they had under the BCS.

As for the Alliance, it was designed to exclude three of the non-AQ leagues and more than half of the non-AQ schools from their attempt to leverage better TV and guaranteed BCS access.

So no cooperation hasn't been a hallmark.

(07-15-2014 08:21 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(07-14-2014 02:19 PM)Seminole Indian Wrote:  Correct me but CUSA loses Tulsa, Tulane, Houston and ECU, right? Adds WKU, and Old Dominion, Right. Hardly an even swap, and has to add Charlotte next year(you guys are suckers for bad football teams).

Geez, give us a chance.

BTW, Charlotte is a founding member of the original CUSA. So, we're just coming back home now that we have football.

We're just looking at history. WKU went winless in its first couple of years. Georgia State went winless last year. USA only beat one FBS team in their first year in FBS. ODU, a supposed star of FCS, got 'mercy ruled' by UNC in year 4 of its program. You have played exactly one year of organized football. You will be moving up to FBS in your third year of competition. That type of expedited upgrade should leave you guys with even less depth than other FCS moveups (which is the big problem FCS moveups face). The timeline of your moveup isn't comparable to UTSA or USA or ODU, but rather similar to Georgia State.

(07-14-2014 06:40 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(07-13-2014 03:15 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(07-12-2014 07:57 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(07-11-2014 04:14 PM)Tallgrass Wrote:  It is sad to see the inability of the NonBCS to organize and speak with one strong voice against all the barriers thrown up against them by BCS.

I'm inclined to share that view, as well.

Doesn't change the facts about C-USA's media-exposure and -revenues. The article linked in the OP is depressing to SDSU fans and the outlook for fans of teams in C-USA, MAC, and Sun Belt is even worse.

I think this thread speaks to the reality. G5 will never cooperate and therefore never have the leverage to generate a decent deal. Trying to be mini-SEC or mini-B12 will always produce mini results.

Wise words from arkstfan.

Sixteen years or so after the BCS-cartel was created, I think it's obvious to everyone (everyone who is paying attention) that the have-not conferences are never going to really cooperate in any consistent, systematic way. I regret that, I really do. But there it is.

There is nothing the G5 can really accomplish working together or apart. They just dont have much power. Yes, a group media contract would result in more money overall for the entire group of 5---but the highest current G5 earners would likely earn a little less under such a system and be on TV less. So there is really no incentive for the top earners to move in this direction--unless uneven revenue sharing is used.

The G5, even as a group, lack any power to "force" the P5 to do anything. The only thing the G5 might be able to do is work together to form a coalition of upper level bowls. They would do this by skimming 10-12 million off the 85 million in annual College Playoff money to create a new "Champions Series" of Bowls. There bowls would pay enough o attract a #3/4 selection from a power conference and would serve as the post season destinations for the 4 G5 champs that don't win the guaranteed G5 "access bowl" slot.

The G5 has already cooperated to build a bunch of junk bowls--so we know we can do it. I'm simply proposing we use the same process to upgrade our post season destinations for the G5 champs.

(07-15-2014 09:55 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-15-2014 08:21 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(07-14-2014 02:19 PM)Seminole Indian Wrote:  Correct me but CUSA loses Tulsa, Tulane, Houston and ECU, right? Adds WKU, and Old Dominion, Right. Hardly an even swap, and has to add Charlotte next year(you guys are suckers for bad football teams).

Geez, give us a chance.

BTW, Charlotte is a founding member of the original CUSA. So, we're just coming back home now that we have football.

We're just looking at history. WKU went winless in its first couple of years. Georgia State went winless last year. USA only beat one FBS team in their first year in FBS. ODU, a supposed star of FCS, got 'mercy ruled' by UNC in year 4 of its program. You have played exactly one year of organized football. You will be moving up to FBS in your third year of competition. That type of expedited upgrade should leave you guys with even less depth than other FCS moveups (which is the big problem FCS moveups face). The timeline of your moveup isn't comparable to UTSA or USA or ODU, but rather similar to Georgia State.

Yep, we'll get stomped for few years but hopefully we'll survive and advance. Lots of talent in the Charlotte area to draw from. No one thinks it'll be easy.

(07-14-2014 09:19 AM)bullet Wrote:  Georgia Southern has the southern half of talent laden Georgia to themselves, but they are in the middle of nowhere and might not be able to generate the revenue to compete well.

What?

Just because there is no other FBS-level campus physically located in southern Georgia, hardly means that GaSo gets their pick of the recruits.

(07-15-2014 12:25 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(07-14-2014 09:19 AM)bullet Wrote:  Georgia Southern has the southern half of talent laden Georgia to themselves, but they are in the middle of nowhere and might not be able to generate the revenue to compete well.

What?

Just because there is no other FBS-level campus physically located in southern Georgia, hardly means that GaSo gets their pick of the recruits.

You are correct, but Georgia Southern will capture some of that talent, simply by virtue of being the only program between Gainesville and Athens. No, a recruit in Macon or Jacksonville isn't going to turn Florida down to attend GaSo, nor a 5 star in Savannah, but they're well situated to compete for recruits with any G5 program. Its a really nice catchement area.

(07-15-2014 12:59 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-15-2014 12:25 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(07-14-2014 09:19 AM)bullet Wrote:  Georgia Southern has the southern half of talent laden Georgia to themselves, but they are in the middle of nowhere and might not be able to generate the revenue to compete well.

What?

Just because there is no other FBS-level campus physically located in southern Georgia, hardly means that GaSo gets their pick of the recruits.

You are correct, but Georgia Southern will capture some of that talent, simply by virtue of being the only program between Gainesville and Athens. No, a recruit in Macon or Jacksonville isn't going to turn Florida down to attend GaSo, nor a 5 star in Savannah, but they're well situated to compete for recruits with any G5 program. Its a really nice catchement area.

Georgia Southern moving up is going to affect the recruiting dynamic significantly. They are adding 22 scholarships with the ability to compete head-2-head against CUSA, AAC and even some ACC schools for recruits.

Its going to take about 10 years before all the new FCS move ups have a chance to show what they can do. My guess is the G5 schools that are less FB oriented like UAB, Charlotte and South Alabama will be hurting while the southern football schools like Troy, Georgia Southern and App State become regulars on the bowl front.

Congrats to CUSA!!! This comes as no surprise to me as the retooled and rearmed CUSA is well situated for future progress. This deal, in addition to the additional exposure provided, should help boost CUSA in its upcoming tv negotiations with its primary tv partners.

NEW SPORTS NETWORK LAUNCHED TODAY
http://csnbbs.com/thread-695295.html

This new network, isn't really a network, but programming offered packaged for syndication... and then only in specific markets... this is very similar to the CW deal the Charlotte 49'ers already have themselves in FCS - where the games are offered to the CW stations of the home markets of their opposition. Overall, for the conference it offers minimal exposure and no gains in markets.

(07-17-2014 11:41 AM)Tallgrass Wrote:  Congrats to CUSA!!! This comes as no surprise to me as the retooled and rearmed CUSA is well situated for future progress. This deal, in addition to the additional exposure provided, should help boost CUSA in its upcoming tv negotiations with its primary tv partners.

NEW SPORTS NETWORK LAUNCHED TODAY
http://csnbbs.com/thread-695295.html

Not sure why you think this would provide a "boost" for CUSA in their upcoming TV negotiations. It provides no more of a boost than the old CSS did. All this does is get the games that were being aired by now defunct CSS back on the air---which is a great thing for CUSA. It just doesn't have much to do with future TV negotiations.

Frankly, the best things about the deal are it gets more games back on the air and it opens up better time slots for televised CUSA games. I don't see it playing any factor in future TV negotiations.

(07-17-2014 12:02 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-17-2014 11:41 AM)Tallgrass Wrote:  Congrats to CUSA!!! This comes as no surprise to me as the retooled and rearmed CUSA is well situated for future progress. This deal, in addition to the additional exposure provided, should help boost CUSA in its upcoming tv negotiations with its primary tv partners.

NEW SPORTS NETWORK LAUNCHED TODAY
http://csnbbs.com/thread-695295.html

Not sure why you think this would provide a "boost" for CUSA in their upcoming TV negotiations. It provides no more of a boost than the old CSS did. All this does is get the games that were being aired by now defunct CSS back on the air---which is a great thing for CUSA. It just doesn't have much to do with future TV negotiations.

Frankly, the best things about the deal are it gets more games back on the air and it opens up better time slots for televised CUSA games. I don't see it playing any factor in future TV negotiations.

I agree. I don't see how this deal enhances C-USA's position in signing a new deal media deal for out 1st tier rights. But, I do see many positives.

It could open new markets, if Sinclair simulcasts some of these games on stations they own outside of current C-USA markets. Not saying they will, but they could.

I think this is better than the old CSS deal. CSS was on cable and not every subscriber could get it. Sinclair seems to be able to air these games live in our markets outside of pay T.V. services. I think that is huge. This deal will expose our programs to a larger portion of our markets than the CSS did, and it puts more C-USA games on T.V. than we had last season.

Also, C-USA is ASN's top football conference. We should get the best times and receive strong promotions on their stations leading up to kickoffs. And, many of these Sinclair stations are CW affiliates. They produce their own evening newscasts, so we should see solid media coverage from those stations too. I think it is a much better situation than we had with CSS.

(07-17-2014 12:32 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(07-17-2014 12:02 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-17-2014 11:41 AM)Tallgrass Wrote:  Congrats to CUSA!!! This comes as no surprise to me as the retooled and rearmed CUSA is well situated for future progress. This deal, in addition to the additional exposure provided, should help boost CUSA in its upcoming tv negotiations with its primary tv partners.

NEW SPORTS NETWORK LAUNCHED TODAY
http://csnbbs.com/thread-695295.html

Not sure why you think this would provide a "boost" for CUSA in their upcoming TV negotiations. It provides no more of a boost than the old CSS did. All this does is get the games that were being aired by now defunct CSS back on the air---which is a great thing for CUSA. It just doesn't have much to do with future TV negotiations.

Frankly, the best things about the deal are it gets more games back on the air and it opens up better time slots for televised CUSA games. I don't see it playing any factor in future TV negotiations.

I agree. I don't see how this deal enhances C-USA's position in signing a new deal media deal for out 1st tier rights. But, I do see many positives.

It could open new markets, if Sinclair simulcasts some of these games on stations they own outside of current C-USA markets. Not saying they will, but they could.

I think this is better than the old CSS deal. CSS was on cable and not every subscriber could get it. Sinclair seems to be able to air these games live in our markets outside of pay T.V. services. I think that is huge. This deal will expose our programs to a larger portion of our markets than the CSS did, and it puts more C-USA games on T.V. than we had last season.

Also, C-USA is ASN's top football conference. We should get the best times and receive strong promotions on their stations leading up to kickoffs. And, many of these Sinclair stations are CW affiliates. They produce their own evening newscasts, so we should see solid media coverage from those stations too. I think it is a much better situation than we had with CSS.

The Sinclair/CUSA agreement reminds me of the BE/FOX deal which came out of the blue; no one expected it. CUSA is now well positioned for its future contract negotiations with all three of its broadcast partners.