(08-10-2014 02:39 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(08-10-2014 02:26 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(08-10-2014 02:23 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(08-10-2014 01:58 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(08-10-2014 01:50 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  Once again, when the rubber hit the road last February, SDSU chose Fresno, SJSU and UNR over Houston, SMU, Tulane, UConn, UCF & Co, while ECU And Friends chose Tulsa over SDSU. That tells me that the interest just isn't there for a coast-to-coast upper-lower-FBS conference.

(You and me both thought that SDSU and the Aresco League were still a fit, even without Boise. Nobody who mattered agreed with us, which tells me that there was something important I don't know or I'm misinterpreting. Most likely that Marinatto's propaganda about the value of games in four time zones was hooey.)

Probably because there's a huge geographical difference between pacific time zone schools just about everyone else in the MWC

Wut?

The schools you specifically mentioned are far removed from the other MW schools. They have even less motivation to be in a coast to coast conference than the rest of the MW schools.

Oh. That may be true, but SDSU also has(had?) a little more incentive to separate from an MWC with Fresno State, SJSU and the Nevada schools and link up with other "big-time city" universities. A lot of college sports and conference-shuffling is branding. A nationwide football conference marks SDSU as not just another Cal State or even UC-Santa Claus.

Colorado State or UNLV or whoever doesn't get that kind of local boost from ditching their MWC peers.

I could definitely see a nationwide conference based on branding work really well. I could see people getting fired up to watch Boise State take on UCF. They could stand to make P5 levels of money.

(08-10-2014 02:45 PM)ECUgradstudent Wrote:  If MAC gets that kind of money, CUSA will get more.

Why? Because ZOMG Teh Marketz? Didn't we all just go around that mulberry bush with the AAC?

Because a conference with Houston, SMU, Tulane, Tulsa, Memphis, UCF and ECU plus some others got $15M on the open market from non-ESPN networks in 2011, and then a conference with those same schools plus some nice additions got $20M on the open market from non-ESPN networks in 2013, before ESPN matched.

Last go-round, the conference with FIU, FAU, MTSU, WKU etc got Squadoosh. So I think if the MAC gets $1M a school, (news) CUSA gets about the same.

(08-10-2014 02:45 PM)ECUgradstudent Wrote:  

(08-10-2014 12:16 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  While I think G5 realignment is likely, I don't believe it is inevitable.

The MAC has opted to re-open their contract with ESPN and C-USA's deal is nearing expiration.

MAC expects to receive about a million per team and presumably C-USA expects to stay near that number or do better.

If they get their numbers, then maybe things stay stable.

If they don't then things may get ugly.

The reality is that in budget terms, none of the G5 are doing much in TV revenue and so far haven't entered into any sort of cooperation agreements to maximize TV and have made very tentative moves to do anything with post-season.

History says there will never be a reorganization summit.

If we look at history then more likely path is a group of schools becoming dissatisfied and breaking from their league or a league believing it has an opportunity to exploit and goes predatory.

Across G5 there are a lot of potential flashpoints.
MWC may want to get back into the central time zone.
BYU could have a change of heart and lead to a MWC break and down-size
A disaffected AAC group could break. They could go predatory
A disaffected CUSA group could break. They could also go predatory
A disaffected MAC group could break. The MAC could conclude larger is better.
Even Sun Belt could fracture and opt to go smaller.

The flashpoints exist but that doesn't mean all or any ever happen.

I think today, the uncertainty over what the TV model looks like makes MWC and AAC inclined to stay pat for several because of the term remaining on their TV and size of that deal.

The wildcard is if someone convinces the G5 to go to the CFP and change the money distribution. If the 12 team cap stays in place it remains a disincentive to growing.

If MAC gets that kind of money, CUSA will get more.

MAC is currently delivering far more eyeballs than CUSA.

(08-10-2014 02:39 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(08-10-2014 02:26 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(08-10-2014 02:23 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(08-10-2014 01:58 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(08-10-2014 01:50 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  Once again, when the rubber hit the road last February, SDSU chose Fresno, SJSU and UNR over Houston, SMU, Tulane, UConn, UCF & Co, while ECU And Friends chose Tulsa over SDSU. That tells me that the interest just isn't there for a coast-to-coast upper-lower-FBS conference.

(You and me both thought that SDSU and the Aresco League were still a fit, even without Boise. Nobody who mattered agreed with us, which tells me that there was something important I don't know or I'm misinterpreting. Most likely that Marinatto's propaganda about the value of games in four time zones was hooey.)

Probably because there's a huge geographical difference between pacific time zone schools just about everyone else in the MWC

Wut?

The schools you specifically mentioned are far removed from the other MW schools. They have even less motivation to be in a coast to coast conference than the rest of the MW schools.

Oh. That may be true, but SDSU also has(had?) a little more incentive to separate from an MWC with Fresno State, SJSU and the Nevada schools and link up with other "big-time city" universities. A lot of college sports and conference-shuffling is branding. A nationwide football conference marks SDSU as not just another Cal State or even UC-Santa Claus.

Colorado State or UNLV or whoever doesn't get that kind of local boost from ditching their MWC peers.

UNLV already has ditched Nevada once, just as SDSU did to Fresno and SJSU, when the MWC was founded, so they get the same feel-good benefit (which is really just schadenfreude from leaving your peers "behind" in the old league). But whether it's them or SDSU or any of the former CUSA teams that felt the same rush of schadenfreude when moving to the AAC, I question whether there is much benefit to shuffling the deck other than that. The "target audience" for those teams doesn't focus so much on whether they have separated from their former peers as they do on the fact that their conferences are still not perceived at the same level as P5 conferences. Simply ditching the WAC or CUSA doesn't get you closer to P5 status.

Now if your football team starts averaging 10 wins a year in whatever conference you move to (like TCU football did), then your program starts to look like a candidate for a move-up. The winning-almost-all-your-games part is 100x more important than the moving-around part.

(08-10-2014 02:58 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(08-10-2014 02:45 PM)ECUgradstudent Wrote:  If MAC gets that kind of money, CUSA will get more.

Why? Because ZOMG Teh Marketz? Didn't we all just go around that mulberry bush with the AAC?

Because a conference with Houston, SMU, Tulane, Tulsa, Memphis, UCF and ECU plus some others got $15M on the open market from non-ESPN networks in 2011, and then a conference with those same schools plus some nice additions got $20M on the open market from non-ESPN networks in 2013, before ESPN matched.

Last go-round, the conference with FIU, FAU, MTSU, WKU etc got Squadoosh. So I think if the MAC gets $1M a school, (news) CUSA gets about the same.

To be fair, if we are using the last go around as the basis then the last go around the MAC got 1 million for the entire conference ($100K a team). I think the issue with the MAC getting a significant raise is---who is bidding against ESPN for the MAC rights? Not CBS-Sports--they don't even take all the CUSA games they already own the rights to. Maybe NBC-Sports? Im thinking the MAC needs a another bidder to get the price up.

I keep hearing the MAC is getting a $1 million per team deal---but as more and more time passes with no public announcement or confirmation, Im wondering if those numbers represent MAC expectations and not necessarily a real agreement. Personally, I think the MAC is underpaid--but I think all the G5 are underpaid. The bottom line we learned from the AAC deal is that you probably need multiple bidders to get any real money--and in the AAC case, they really needed 3 bidders to get things going because ESPN had the right to match and could just sit silently on the sidelines. The AAC needed someone to bid against NBC on the open market. Im not sure , but it wouldn't surprise me if ESPN has the same "right to match" clause in the MAC agreement.

(08-10-2014 03:05 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(08-10-2014 02:45 PM)ECUgradstudent Wrote:  

(08-10-2014 12:16 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  While I think G5 realignment is likely, I don't believe it is inevitable.

The MAC has opted to re-open their contract with ESPN and C-USA's deal is nearing expiration.

MAC expects to receive about a million per team and presumably C-USA expects to stay near that number or do better.

If they get their numbers, then maybe things stay stable.

If they don't then things may get ugly.

The reality is that in budget terms, none of the G5 are doing much in TV revenue and so far haven't entered into any sort of cooperation agreements to maximize TV and have made very tentative moves to do anything with post-season.

History says there will never be a reorganization summit.

If we look at history then more likely path is a group of schools becoming dissatisfied and breaking from their league or a league believing it has an opportunity to exploit and goes predatory.

Across G5 there are a lot of potential flashpoints.
MWC may want to get back into the central time zone.
BYU could have a change of heart and lead to a MWC break and down-size
A disaffected AAC group could break. They could go predatory
A disaffected CUSA group could break. They could also go predatory
A disaffected MAC group could break. The MAC could conclude larger is better.
Even Sun Belt could fracture and opt to go smaller.

The flashpoints exist but that doesn't mean all or any ever happen.

I think today, the uncertainty over what the TV model looks like makes MWC and AAC inclined to stay pat for several because of the term remaining on their TV and size of that deal.

The wildcard is if someone convinces the G5 to go to the CFP and change the money distribution. If the 12 team cap stays in place it remains a disincentive to growing.

If MAC gets that kind of money, CUSA will get more.

MAC is currently delivering far more eyeballs than CUSA.

The order is CUSA, MAC, and Sunbelt as far as order of the bottom of FBS barrel in those three.

(08-10-2014 03:40 PM)ECUgradstudent Wrote:  

(08-10-2014 03:05 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(08-10-2014 02:45 PM)ECUgradstudent Wrote:  

(08-10-2014 12:16 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  While I think G5 realignment is likely, I don't believe it is inevitable.

The MAC has opted to re-open their contract with ESPN and C-USA's deal is nearing expiration.

MAC expects to receive about a million per team and presumably C-USA expects to stay near that number or do better.

If they get their numbers, then maybe things stay stable.

If they don't then things may get ugly.

The reality is that in budget terms, none of the G5 are doing much in TV revenue and so far haven't entered into any sort of cooperation agreements to maximize TV and have made very tentative moves to do anything with post-season.

History says there will never be a reorganization summit.

If we look at history then more likely path is a group of schools becoming dissatisfied and breaking from their league or a league believing it has an opportunity to exploit and goes predatory.

Across G5 there are a lot of potential flashpoints.
MWC may want to get back into the central time zone.
BYU could have a change of heart and lead to a MWC break and down-size
A disaffected AAC group could break. They could go predatory
A disaffected CUSA group could break. They could also go predatory
A disaffected MAC group could break. The MAC could conclude larger is better.
Even Sun Belt could fracture and opt to go smaller.

The flashpoints exist but that doesn't mean all or any ever happen.

I think today, the uncertainty over what the TV model looks like makes MWC and AAC inclined to stay pat for several because of the term remaining on their TV and size of that deal.

The wildcard is if someone convinces the G5 to go to the CFP and change the money distribution. If the 12 team cap stays in place it remains a disincentive to growing.

If MAC gets that kind of money, CUSA will get more.

MAC is currently delivering far more eyeballs than CUSA.

The order is CUSA, MAC, and Sunbelt as far as order of the bottom of FBS barrel in those three.

Not any more. CUSA is in the bottom now. According to your reasoning the SoCon should be the top conference because it once has SEC teams in it. CUSA in today's configuration is below the Sun Belt.

(08-10-2014 03:19 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-10-2014 02:58 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(08-10-2014 02:45 PM)ECUgradstudent Wrote:  If MAC gets that kind of money, CUSA will get more.

Why? Because ZOMG Teh Marketz? Didn't we all just go around that mulberry bush with the AAC?

Because a conference with Houston, SMU, Tulane, Tulsa, Memphis, UCF and ECU plus some others got $15M on the open market from non-ESPN networks in 2011, and then a conference with those same schools plus some nice additions got $20M on the open market from non-ESPN networks in 2013, before ESPN matched.

Last go-round, the conference with FIU, FAU, MTSU, WKU etc got Squadoosh. So I think if the MAC gets $1M a school, (news) CUSA gets about the same.

To be fair, if we are using the last go around as the basis then the last go around the MAC got 1 million for the entire conference ($100K a team). I think the issue with the MAC getting a significant raise is---who is bidding against ESPN for the MAC rights? Not CBS-Sports--they don't even take all the CUSA games they already own the rights to. Maybe NBC-Sports? Im thinking the MAC needs a another bidder to get the price up.

I keep hearing the MAC is getting a $1 million per team deal---but as more and more time passes with no public announcement or confirmation, Im wondering if those numbers represent MAC expectations and not necessarily a real agreement. Personally, I think the MAC is underpaid--but I think all the G5 are underpaid. The bottom line we learned from the AAC deal is that you probably need multiple bidders to get any real money--and in the AAC case, they really needed 3 bidders to get things going because ESPN had the right to match and could just sit silently on the sidelines. The AAC needed someone to bid against NBC on the open market. Im not sure , but it wouldn't surprise me if ESPN has the same "right to match" clause in the MAC agreement.

By reopening the MAC has precluded any other bidders.

(08-10-2014 04:27 PM)Miami (Oh) Yeah ! Wrote:  

(08-10-2014 03:40 PM)ECUgradstudent Wrote:  

(08-10-2014 03:05 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(08-10-2014 02:45 PM)ECUgradstudent Wrote:  

(08-10-2014 12:16 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  While I think G5 realignment is likely, I don't believe it is inevitable.

The MAC has opted to re-open their contract with ESPN and C-USA's deal is nearing expiration.

MAC expects to receive about a million per team and presumably C-USA expects to stay near that number or do better.

If they get their numbers, then maybe things stay stable.

If they don't then things may get ugly.

The reality is that in budget terms, none of the G5 are doing much in TV revenue and so far haven't entered into any sort of cooperation agreements to maximize TV and have made very tentative moves to do anything with post-season.

History says there will never be a reorganization summit.

If we look at history then more likely path is a group of schools becoming dissatisfied and breaking from their league or a league believing it has an opportunity to exploit and goes predatory.

Across G5 there are a lot of potential flashpoints.
MWC may want to get back into the central time zone.
BYU could have a change of heart and lead to a MWC break and down-size
A disaffected AAC group could break. They could go predatory
A disaffected CUSA group could break. They could also go predatory
A disaffected MAC group could break. The MAC could conclude larger is better.
Even Sun Belt could fracture and opt to go smaller.

The flashpoints exist but that doesn't mean all or any ever happen.

I think today, the uncertainty over what the TV model looks like makes MWC and AAC inclined to stay pat for several because of the term remaining on their TV and size of that deal.

The wildcard is if someone convinces the G5 to go to the CFP and change the money distribution. If the 12 team cap stays in place it remains a disincentive to growing.

If MAC gets that kind of money, CUSA will get more.

MAC is currently delivering far more eyeballs than CUSA.

The order is CUSA, MAC, and Sunbelt as far as order of the bottom of FBS barrel in those three.

Not any more. CUSA is in the bottom now. According to your reasoning the SoCon should be the top conference because it once has SEC teams in it. CUSA in today's configuration is below the Sun Belt.

CUSA is still tops of those 3 in just about any category but football strength. There the 3 are close.

(08-10-2014 07:19 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(08-10-2014 03:19 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-10-2014 02:58 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(08-10-2014 02:45 PM)ECUgradstudent Wrote:  If MAC gets that kind of money, CUSA will get more.

Why? Because ZOMG Teh Marketz? Didn't we all just go around that mulberry bush with the AAC?

Because a conference with Houston, SMU, Tulane, Tulsa, Memphis, UCF and ECU plus some others got $15M on the open market from non-ESPN networks in 2011, and then a conference with those same schools plus some nice additions got $20M on the open market from non-ESPN networks in 2013, before ESPN matched.

Last go-round, the conference with FIU, FAU, MTSU, WKU etc got Squadoosh. So I think if the MAC gets $1M a school, (news) CUSA gets about the same.

To be fair, if we are using the last go around as the basis then the last go around the MAC got 1 million for the entire conference ($100K a team). I think the issue with the MAC getting a significant raise is---who is bidding against ESPN for the MAC rights? Not CBS-Sports--they don't even take all the CUSA games they already own the rights to. Maybe NBC-Sports? Im thinking the MAC needs a another bidder to get the price up.

I keep hearing the MAC is getting a $1 million per team deal---but as more and more time passes with no public announcement or confirmation, Im wondering if those numbers represent MAC expectations and not necessarily a real agreement. Personally, I think the MAC is underpaid--but I think all the G5 are underpaid. The bottom line we learned from the AAC deal is that you probably need multiple bidders to get any real money--and in the AAC case, they really needed 3 bidders to get things going because ESPN had the right to match and could just sit silently on the sidelines. The AAC needed someone to bid against NBC on the open market. Im not sure , but it wouldn't surprise me if ESPN has the same "right to match" clause in the MAC agreement.

By reopening the MAC has precluded any other bidders.

Good point, I forgot this is an extension situation---still, the presence of other bidders waiting in the wings would clearly be a positive influence. When does the current contract actually expire?

After 2016-2017 school year.

(08-10-2014 12:35 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  Thinking of G5 movement top down here, I have always liked a move by the AAC to take BYU and Colorado St. The trickle down to this movement would straighten out some geographic issues. It doesn't have to be anything as major as the formation of a completely new conference. The AAC would position themselves as the clear top G5 conference with BYU.

AAC (BYU, Colorado St)-BYU plus the Denver market to boost TV rights
MWC (UTEP, UTSA, UNT)-MWC goes big into Texas
CUSA (Georgia St)-CUSA addresses a geography gap into the East

SBC could hang at 10 schools it it wanted to split the CFP money less ways.

Get the memo already... BYU and CSU don't want to join the AAC.

(08-10-2014 09:37 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  

(08-10-2014 12:35 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  Thinking of G5 movement top down here, I have always liked a move by the AAC to take BYU and Colorado St. The trickle down to this movement would straighten out some geographic issues. It doesn't have to be anything as major as the formation of a completely new conference. The AAC would position themselves as the clear top G5 conference with BYU.

AAC (BYU, Colorado St)-BYU plus the Denver market to boost TV rights
MWC (UTEP, UTSA, UNT)-MWC goes big into Texas
CUSA (Georgia St)-CUSA addresses a geography gap into the East

SBC could hang at 10 schools it it wanted to split the CFP money less ways.

Get the memo already... BYU and CSU don't want to join the AAC.

I'm not saying you are wrong but its maybe the only way AAC expands from 12 to 14.

I think a nation wide G5 conf would work
it would have to include BYU & be at 20 schools
fill in gaps that P5 has missed & would need all 4 networks bidding
west- BYU, Haw, SDST, Fresno, SJST
UNLV, NM, ColoSt, UTEP, Boise
east- Conn, Cin, UCF, USF, Hous
SMU, Memphis, Temple, Buffalo, Mass

What can the S5 do really? The AAC has already absorb the best of the rest schools east of and including Texas.

They could have there own 4 team bowl playoff like the P5 but at least 1 of the best teams would be selected for the CFP or CFP access bowls. It would draw some interest but if it were feasible, it would have happened already.

(08-10-2014 02:45 PM)ECUgradstudent Wrote:  

(08-10-2014 12:16 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  MAC expects to receive about a million per team and presumably C-USA expects to stay near that number or do better.


I think today, the uncertainty over what the TV model looks like makes MWC and AAC inclined to stay pat for several because of the term remaining on their TV and size of that deal.

If MAC gets that kind of money, CUSA will get more.

I think the Mac likely pushes 1mil per team. I doubt CUSA does much better, though doing 1 to 200k per team is very possible.

As for MWC/AAC, I think MWC likely stands pat for a while, I think AAC will try to negotiate as soon as look in window opens. It makes little sense for them to wait 6 years on a big deal when you can make real gain with an extension in 3. The AAC had to make a deal at the worse possible time, if things are stable for 2 or 3 years, doubling the current deal is possible. That would simply get their deal to BE basketball only #s. but make them a true tweener.

(08-10-2014 01:50 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(08-10-2014 01:36 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I think the west ends up with coverage from 3 conferences---I just don't think it will work in the nice neat way you are thinking of. I think its more likely that the AAC (or some new best of the rest conference) eventually goes nationwide with 5 or 6 MW schools.

Once again, when the rubber hit the road last February, SDSU chose Fresno, SJSU and UNR over Houston, SMU, Tulane, UConn, UCF & Co, while ECU And Friends chose Tulsa over SDSU. That tells me that the interest just isn't there for a coast-to-coast upper-lower-FBS conference.

(You and me both thought that SDSU and the Aresco League were still a fit, even without Boise. Nobody who mattered agreed with us, which tells me that there was something important I don't know or I'm misinterpreting. Most likely that Marinatto's propaganda about the value of games in four time zones was hooey.)

I don't believe SDSU did the choosing. I think with BSU changing their mind and backing out, SDSU was no longer wanted by the AAC. Might have eventually worked out for the AAC if they had held onto SDSU and later added to their western portion with BYU, Fresno St, AFA and even Hawaii. Lots of eyeballs for that group.

(08-10-2014 03:05 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(08-10-2014 02:45 PM)ECUgradstudent Wrote:  

(08-10-2014 12:16 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  While I think G5 realignment is likely, I don't believe it is inevitable.

The MAC has opted to re-open their contract with ESPN and C-USA's deal is nearing expiration.

MAC expects to receive about a million per team and presumably C-USA expects to stay near that number or do better.

If they get their numbers, then maybe things stay stable.

If they don't then things may get ugly.

The reality is that in budget terms, none of the G5 are doing much in TV revenue and so far haven't entered into any sort of cooperation agreements to maximize TV and have made very tentative moves to do anything with post-season.

History says there will never be a reorganization summit.

If we look at history then more likely path is a group of schools becoming dissatisfied and breaking from their league or a league believing it has an opportunity to exploit and goes predatory.

Across G5 there are a lot of potential flashpoints.
MWC may want to get back into the central time zone.
BYU could have a change of heart and lead to a MWC break and down-size
A disaffected AAC group could break. They could go predatory
A disaffected CUSA group could break. They could also go predatory
A disaffected MAC group could break. The MAC could conclude larger is better.
Even Sun Belt could fracture and opt to go smaller.

The flashpoints exist but that doesn't mean all or any ever happen.

I think today, the uncertainty over what the TV model looks like makes MWC and AAC inclined to stay pat for several because of the term remaining on their TV and size of that deal.

The wildcard is if someone convinces the G5 to go to the CFP and change the money distribution. If the 12 team cap stays in place it remains a disincentive to growing.

If MAC gets that kind of money, CUSA will get more.

MAC is currently delivering far more eyeballs than CUSA.

Really? Far more eyeballs?

This is from a recent article on tv ratings for college football in 2013:

2013 Conference TV Ratings
Rank Conference Avg Viewers Avg Rating # of Rated Gms
1 SEC 3,805,794 2.34 120
2 Big 10 2,920,815 1.84 82
3 ACC 1,961,674 1.25 88
4 Pac 12 1,759,673 1.11 76
5 Big 12 1,625,221 1.01 92
6 MWC 1,010,406 0.65 49
7 AAC 971,983 0.65 60
8 MAC 792,583 0.50 36
9 C-USA 780,254 0.50 42
10 Sun Belt 603,694 0.42 18


Those ratings include games on ABC, CBS, FOX, NBC, ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU, and FOX Sports 1 and exclude the regional ratings from the Big Ten, Pac-12 and the Longhorn networks, and those games on CBSSports. Also not included were the results of the individual conference championship games since all conferences did not have one.
______________________________________

Notice that C-USA was on CBSSports as well as FoxS1 so about 12 games were not included. If 12k more per game while having the espn advantage is many more eyeballs to you, then you are just trying too hard to dismiss C-USA. If anything, I think this shows that even though C-USA games were more difficult to find for your average fan, they did fine and if given the same exposure, would do even better. It's likely that tv folks are aware of that.

http://www.mwcconnection.com/2014/6/28/5...gs-in-2013

(08-11-2014 09:14 AM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  

(08-10-2014 03:05 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(08-10-2014 02:45 PM)ECUgradstudent Wrote:  

(08-10-2014 12:16 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  While I think G5 realignment is likely, I don't believe it is inevitable.

The MAC has opted to re-open their contract with ESPN and C-USA's deal is nearing expiration.

MAC expects to receive about a million per team and presumably C-USA expects to stay near that number or do better.

If they get their numbers, then maybe things stay stable.

If they don't then things may get ugly.

The reality is that in budget terms, none of the G5 are doing much in TV revenue and so far haven't entered into any sort of cooperation agreements to maximize TV and have made very tentative moves to do anything with post-season.

History says there will never be a reorganization summit.

If we look at history then more likely path is a group of schools becoming dissatisfied and breaking from their league or a league believing it has an opportunity to exploit and goes predatory.

Across G5 there are a lot of potential flashpoints.
MWC may want to get back into the central time zone.
BYU could have a change of heart and lead to a MWC break and down-size
A disaffected AAC group could break. They could go predatory
A disaffected CUSA group could break. They could also go predatory
A disaffected MAC group could break. The MAC could conclude larger is better.
Even Sun Belt could fracture and opt to go smaller.

The flashpoints exist but that doesn't mean all or any ever happen.

I think today, the uncertainty over what the TV model looks like makes MWC and AAC inclined to stay pat for several because of the term remaining on their TV and size of that deal.

The wildcard is if someone convinces the G5 to go to the CFP and change the money distribution. If the 12 team cap stays in place it remains a disincentive to growing.

If MAC gets that kind of money, CUSA will get more.

MAC is currently delivering far more eyeballs than CUSA.

Really? Far more eyeballs?

This is from a recent article on tv ratings for college football in 2013:

2013 Conference TV Ratings
Rank Conference Avg Viewers Avg Rating # of Rated Gms
1 SEC 3,805,794 2.34 120
2 Big 10 2,920,815 1.84 82
3 ACC 1,961,674 1.25 88
4 Pac 12 1,759,673 1.11 76
5 Big 12 1,625,221 1.01 92
6 MWC 1,010,406 0.65 49
7 AAC 971,983 0.65 60
8 MAC 792,583 0.50 36
9 C-USA 780,254 0.50 42
10 Sun Belt 603,694 0.42 18


Those ratings include games on ABC, CBS, FOX, NBC, ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU, and FOX Sports 1 and exclude the regional ratings from the Big Ten, Pac-12 and the Longhorn networks, and those games on CBSSports. Also not included were the results of the individual conference championship games since all conferences did not have one.
______________________________________

Notice that C-USA was on CBSSports as well as FoxS1 so about 12 games were not included. If 12k more per game while having the espn advantage is many more eyeballs to you, then you are just trying too hard to dismiss C-USA. If anything, I think this shows that even though C-USA games were more difficult to find for your average fan, they did fine and if given the same exposure, would do even better. It's likely that tv folks are aware of that.

http://www.mwcconnection.com/2014/6/28/5...gs-in-2013

Extract the vs. other conferences games and look at intra-conference games.
Most watched CUSA game was ECU vs. FAU with 181,000 viewers.
MAC had five games draw 500,000 or more viewers. Six if you count the championship game.

(08-11-2014 09:21 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(08-11-2014 09:14 AM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  

(08-10-2014 03:05 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(08-10-2014 02:45 PM)ECUgradstudent Wrote:  

(08-10-2014 12:16 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  While I think G5 realignment is likely, I don't believe it is inevitable.

The MAC has opted to re-open their contract with ESPN and C-USA's deal is nearing expiration.

MAC expects to receive about a million per team and presumably C-USA expects to stay near that number or do better.

If they get their numbers, then maybe things stay stable.

If they don't then things may get ugly.

The reality is that in budget terms, none of the G5 are doing much in TV revenue and so far haven't entered into any sort of cooperation agreements to maximize TV and have made very tentative moves to do anything with post-season.

History says there will never be a reorganization summit.

If we look at history then more likely path is a group of schools becoming dissatisfied and breaking from their league or a league believing it has an opportunity to exploit and goes predatory.

Across G5 there are a lot of potential flashpoints.
MWC may want to get back into the central time zone.
BYU could have a change of heart and lead to a MWC break and down-size
A disaffected AAC group could break. They could go predatory
A disaffected CUSA group could break. They could also go predatory
A disaffected MAC group could break. The MAC could conclude larger is better.
Even Sun Belt could fracture and opt to go smaller.

The flashpoints exist but that doesn't mean all or any ever happen.

I think today, the uncertainty over what the TV model looks like makes MWC and AAC inclined to stay pat for several because of the term remaining on their TV and size of that deal.

The wildcard is if someone convinces the G5 to go to the CFP and change the money distribution. If the 12 team cap stays in place it remains a disincentive to growing.

If MAC gets that kind of money, CUSA will get more.

MAC is currently delivering far more eyeballs than CUSA.

Really? Far more eyeballs?

This is from a recent article on tv ratings for college football in 2013:

2013 Conference TV Ratings
Rank Conference Avg Viewers Avg Rating # of Rated Gms
1 SEC 3,805,794 2.34 120
2 Big 10 2,920,815 1.84 82
3 ACC 1,961,674 1.25 88
4 Pac 12 1,759,673 1.11 76
5 Big 12 1,625,221 1.01 92
6 MWC 1,010,406 0.65 49
7 AAC 971,983 0.65 60
8 MAC 792,583 0.50 36
9 C-USA 780,254 0.50 42
10 Sun Belt 603,694 0.42 18


Those ratings include games on ABC, CBS, FOX, NBC, ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU, and FOX Sports 1 and exclude the regional ratings from the Big Ten, Pac-12 and the Longhorn networks, and those games on CBSSports. Also not included were the results of the individual conference championship games since all conferences did not have one.
______________________________________

Notice that C-USA was on CBSSports as well as FoxS1 so about 12 games were not included. If 12k more per game while having the espn advantage is many more eyeballs to you, then you are just trying too hard to dismiss C-USA. If anything, I think this shows that even though C-USA games were more difficult to find for your average fan, they did fine and if given the same exposure, would do even better. It's likely that tv folks are aware of that.

http://www.mwcconnection.com/2014/6/28/5...gs-in-2013

Extract the vs. other conferences games and look at intra-conference games.
Most watched CUSA game was ECU vs. FAU with 181,000 viewers.
MAC had five games draw 500,000 or more viewers. Six if you count the championship game.

Not to mention ECU is no longer a part of that conference.