(08-11-2014 08:30 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(08-11-2014 03:11 PM)panama Wrote:  New AD to be hired in next 3 weeks

I thought Parthasarathy was just named A.D. on a permanent (non-interim) basis. Not true?

Interim and he didnt put his hat in for the ring for the permanent position. Short list being interviewed as we speak.

(08-12-2014 12:41 AM)ECBrad Wrote:  Also I don't think it would be unfair to describe every MAC program as uninterested, or uninteresting for that matter.

MACtion anyone? I for one love those mid week games.

(08-12-2014 08:22 AM)panama Wrote:  

(08-11-2014 08:30 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(08-11-2014 03:11 PM)panama Wrote:  New AD to be hired in next 3 weeks

I thought Parthasarathy was just named A.D. on a permanent (non-interim) basis. Not true?

Interim and he didnt put his hat in for the ring for the permanent position. Short list being interviewed as we speak.

Panama thanks for the clue.

What can I say -- I heard that from someone who's not a GSU insider but moves in the same legal/political circles as B.P. does. I'll have to ask her where she heard that.

(08-11-2014 10:58 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  I don't see teams giving up, so much as being priced out of relevance. Schools with smaller athletic budgets, that can't or won't increase them, simple won't be able to offer some of the new luxuries that will come from the recent autonomy ruling, like the full cost of attendance. Programs that don't spend those extra funds will lose in recruiting, and become less competitive, and see attendance and athletic funding decrease. I see that becoming a repeating cycle for them. Those programs will become less and less competitive and relevant every year, until they either drop football, to save basketball, or drop down to the FCS. I don't know which programs fall into this group, but looking at programs with the smallest budgets, and small alumni bases, would be a good place to start. I think they are the most at risk.

Honest question, how do teams like North Texas, that have money issues and small fan basses survive this?

This is especially true for Conference USA as they are in the midst of tv contract negotiations. What network puts money into Conference USA in this post P5 world? Especially as the conference has only two teams, USM and Marshall, that have any name recognition or have done anything worth note in College Football. Also, with so many questions about the relevance about so many G5 schools in the next 5 years because of scheduling issues and competitive challenges, I think the conference is in deep, deep trouble, as are most of its teams.

(08-11-2014 12:38 PM)BigHouston Wrote:  1. MWC - A little over 1/2 of their schools
2. CUSA - A little over 3/4 of their schools
3. MAC - A good portion of all their schools
4. SBC - A good portion of all their schools

MAC has been playing at the highest level for 70 years and most have been playing football in general for 100 years. MAC isn't going anywhere, we all get along, have played each other forever, and have a big advantage over any other G5 league in reduced expenses from travel and salaries. There is a gentlemen's agreement among the MAC to never raise coaching salaries higher than 10% of the current highest paid coach in the league. We save money over the $1-$2 million salaries the rest of the G5 pay. Why overpay? The P5 is littered with MAC coaches and we routinely get some of the best talent (Saban, Urban Meyer, Pinkel, Hoke, half the ACC, etc)

If a P5 wants a G5 coach it doesnt matter if you pay him $500,000 or $2 million, he is gone. So why waste money if you still attract the best talent who are looking for next Big Ten/SEC multi-million bonanza like Urban Meyer when he coached Bowling Green.

The new stipends will be more than covered by the new found CFP money and if the rumors hold true about a $1 million+ TV deal than there is no doubt in my mind for reasons mentioned and others that the MAC is the most financially viable G5 league.

The financial advantages the MAC have over the MWC, Sun Belt, and nCUSA are ridiculous. MWC has to charter a plane to fly softball players halfway across the country while the MAC hops on a cheap bus. MWC expenses are millions and millions above ours. So is the Sun Belt and we'll make more revenue than them.

(08-12-2014 08:52 AM)baruna falls Wrote:  

(08-11-2014 10:58 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  I don't see teams giving up, so much as being priced out of relevance. Schools with smaller athletic budgets, that can't or won't increase them, simple won't be able to offer some of the new luxuries that will come from the recent autonomy ruling, like the full cost of attendance. Programs that don't spend those extra funds will lose in recruiting, and become less competitive, and see attendance and athletic funding decrease. I see that becoming a repeating cycle for them. Those programs will become less and less competitive and relevant every year, until they either drop football, to save basketball, or drop down to the FCS. I don't know which programs fall into this group, but looking at programs with the smallest budgets, and small alumni bases, would be a good place to start. I think they are the most at risk.

Honest question, how do teams like North Texas, that have money issues and small fan basses survive this?

This is especially true for Conference USA as they are in the midst of tv contract negotiations. What network puts money into Conference USA in this post P5 world? Especially as the conference has only two teams, USM and Marshall, that have any name recognition or have done anything worth note in College Football. Also, with so many questions about the relevance about so many G5 schools in the next 5 years because of scheduling issues and competitive challenges, I think the conference is in deep, deep trouble, as are most of its teams.

There are 40 bowls. What does that indicate? That there is a market for content. Its not an all or nothing situation whereby its either SEC game of the week or nothing. There is still a market to watch Bowling Green at WKU (CBSSN). The world will go on. What may change is that the next Louisville wil find the price to enter the P5 has risen exponentially. But at this level not much is going to change.

(08-11-2014 11:49 AM)Cyniclone Wrote:  

(08-11-2014 11:45 AM)UConnFB Wrote:  

(08-11-2014 11:03 AM)Cyniclone Wrote:  

(08-11-2014 10:56 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  Why would they have to quit? The might be content at leeching the revenues and sucking at sports.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

The Big East turfed Temple for not being competitive in football.

In this case a conference would have greater cause because not only would a program not be competitive on the field, but by not making the effort to keep up, they're signalling to the conference that they're not fully vested in its success the way others would be. And that could get them drummed out.

Temple at that time was only an associate member, it wasn't like it was a full member. If the B1G were to give Northwestern the boot, something like that would be unprecedented.

That would never happen because Northwestern has long-term relationships with most of the Big 10 members. No G5 program has that kind of relationship with both its conference and most of its members. It's a lot easier for the Sun Belt to send ULM packing than it would be for a P5 to disassociate from a lagging member.

Good grief. I just cited Northwestern to explain how difficult and unprecedented giving the boot to some school would be. Stop reading things so literally.

And for the record The University of Chicago "gave up" on the B1G long ago, and they still have a standing invite to return should they chose to do so.

The Ivy League, as a conference "gave up" long ago.

(08-12-2014 09:39 AM)panama Wrote:  

(08-12-2014 08:52 AM)baruna falls Wrote:  

(08-11-2014 10:58 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  I don't see teams giving up, so much as being priced out of relevance. Schools with smaller athletic budgets, that can't or won't increase them, simple won't be able to offer some of the new luxuries that will come from the recent autonomy ruling, like the full cost of attendance. Programs that don't spend those extra funds will lose in recruiting, and become less competitive, and see attendance and athletic funding decrease. I see that becoming a repeating cycle for them. Those programs will become less and less competitive and relevant every year, until they either drop football, to save basketball, or drop down to the FCS. I don't know which programs fall into this group, but looking at programs with the smallest budgets, and small alumni bases, would be a good place to start. I think they are the most at risk.

Honest question, how do teams like North Texas, that have money issues and small fan basses survive this?

This is especially true for Conference USA as they are in the midst of tv contract negotiations. What network puts money into Conference USA in this post P5 world? Especially as the conference has only two teams, USM and Marshall, that have any name recognition or have done anything worth note in College Football. Also, with so many questions about the relevance about so many G5 schools in the next 5 years because of scheduling issues and competitive challenges, I think the conference is in deep, deep trouble, as are most of its teams.

There are 40 bowls. What does that indicate? That there is a market for content. Its not an all or nothing situation whereby its either SEC game of the week or nothing. There is still a market to watch Bowling Green at WKU (CBSSN). The world will go on. What may change is that the next Louisville wil find the price to enter the P5 has risen exponentially. But at this level not much is going to change.

This is where I think you are wrong. I think it is very likely that many of these bowl games dry up. I put Ga State in the category of being in trouble going forward. Just do not see a market for you guys in the future.

(08-12-2014 10:06 AM)baruna falls Wrote:  

(08-12-2014 09:39 AM)panama Wrote:  

(08-12-2014 08:52 AM)baruna falls Wrote:  

(08-11-2014 10:58 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  I don't see teams giving up, so much as being priced out of relevance. Schools with smaller athletic budgets, that can't or won't increase them, simple won't be able to offer some of the new luxuries that will come from the recent autonomy ruling, like the full cost of attendance. Programs that don't spend those extra funds will lose in recruiting, and become less competitive, and see attendance and athletic funding decrease. I see that becoming a repeating cycle for them. Those programs will become less and less competitive and relevant every year, until they either drop football, to save basketball, or drop down to the FCS. I don't know which programs fall into this group, but looking at programs with the smallest budgets, and small alumni bases, would be a good place to start. I think they are the most at risk.

Honest question, how do teams like North Texas, that have money issues and small fan basses survive this?

This is especially true for Conference USA as they are in the midst of tv contract negotiations. What network puts money into Conference USA in this post P5 world? Especially as the conference has only two teams, USM and Marshall, that have any name recognition or have done anything worth note in College Football. Also, with so many questions about the relevance about so many G5 schools in the next 5 years because of scheduling issues and competitive challenges, I think the conference is in deep, deep trouble, as are most of its teams.

There are 40 bowls. What does that indicate? That there is a market for content. Its not an all or nothing situation whereby its either SEC game of the week or nothing. There is still a market to watch Bowling Green at WKU (CBSSN). The world will go on. What may change is that the next Louisville wil find the price to enter the P5 has risen exponentially. But at this level not much is going to change.

This is where I think you are wrong. I think it is very likely that many of these bowl games dry up. I put Ga State in the category of being in trouble going forward. Just do not see a market for you guys in the future.

Where is the market going? Is ESPN3 suddenly going away? CBS Sports Network? Comcast? Almost every game in our 4 year history has been televised even as we sucked worse than a vacuum pump and in FCS at that. So what are all of those regional channels going to broadcast? Someone tell Morgan Freeman his services are not needed. The world is not ending.

(08-12-2014 10:12 AM)panama Wrote:  

(08-12-2014 10:06 AM)baruna falls Wrote:  

(08-12-2014 09:39 AM)panama Wrote:  

(08-12-2014 08:52 AM)baruna falls Wrote:  

(08-11-2014 10:58 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  I don't see teams giving up, so much as being priced out of relevance. Schools with smaller athletic budgets, that can't or won't increase them, simple won't be able to offer some of the new luxuries that will come from the recent autonomy ruling, like the full cost of attendance. Programs that don't spend those extra funds will lose in recruiting, and become less competitive, and see attendance and athletic funding decrease. I see that becoming a repeating cycle for them. Those programs will become less and less competitive and relevant every year, until they either drop football, to save basketball, or drop down to the FCS. I don't know which programs fall into this group, but looking at programs with the smallest budgets, and small alumni bases, would be a good place to start. I think they are the most at risk.

Honest question, how do teams like North Texas, that have money issues and small fan basses survive this?

This is especially true for Conference USA as they are in the midst of tv contract negotiations. What network puts money into Conference USA in this post P5 world? Especially as the conference has only two teams, USM and Marshall, that have any name recognition or have done anything worth note in College Football. Also, with so many questions about the relevance about so many G5 schools in the next 5 years because of scheduling issues and competitive challenges, I think the conference is in deep, deep trouble, as are most of its teams.

There are 40 bowls. What does that indicate? That there is a market for content. Its not an all or nothing situation whereby its either SEC game of the week or nothing. There is still a market to watch Bowling Green at WKU (CBSSN). The world will go on. What may change is that the next Louisville wil find the price to enter the P5 has risen exponentially. But at this level not much is going to change.

This is where I think you are wrong. I think it is very likely that many of these bowl games dry up. I put Ga State in the category of being in trouble going forward. Just do not see a market for you guys in the future.

Where is the market going? Is ESPN3 suddenly going away? CBS Sports Network? Comcast? Almost every game in our 4 year history has been televised even as we sucked worse than a vacuum pump and in FCS at that. So what are all of those regional channels going to broadcast? Someone tell Morgan Freeman his services are not needed. The world is not ending.

Your looking short term, i am looking mid to long term. Networks of course will always look for cheap programming. I believe going forward that most tv money will dry up for the majority of G5 schools outside the AAC and for all but four or five MWC teams.

Not trying to rag on programs, just speaking as someone who reviews business sytems for part of my job. If the P5 get what they want we are unfortunately looking at the end of many G5 football programs in their current state. The money for all but the top league is going to dry up.

No tv exec wants to be the last man standing holding on to a tv Conference contract that pays teams that have little to no market value. The P5 are calling the shots now and only the G5 strong will survive.

Would not surprise me at all if the bottom G5 Conferences sign new contracts that are based on tv rating performance goals. This unfortunately is going to mean that the money for most G5 programs, outside of the best league or two, will all but dry up. Tv guys are risk averse, so tying contract money to ratings numbers is much safer for the networks at the moment than a yearly locked in amount. In short, i forsee tv contracts that only pay money when ratings numbers are met. I also see the networks setting those figures to their financial advantage.

Please dont take my post as someone who wants schools to fail, because, I dont. I think being a fan of a college team is a great endeavor. If i am wearing my consultants hat however, i see some very painfull moments ahead for many G5 programs.

Even long term I see the TV contract aspect as a big deal if we were making millions from TV contracts for football. But we're not so I just dont see this an enterprise killer. For 99% of schools adjustments will be made and life will continue.

(08-12-2014 08:52 AM)baruna falls Wrote:  

(08-11-2014 10:58 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  I don't see teams giving up, so much as being priced out of relevance. Schools with smaller athletic budgets, that can't or won't increase them, simple won't be able to offer some of the new luxuries that will come from the recent autonomy ruling, like the full cost of attendance. Programs that don't spend those extra funds will lose in recruiting, and become less competitive, and see attendance and athletic funding decrease. I see that becoming a repeating cycle for them. Those programs will become less and less competitive and relevant every year, until they either drop football, to save basketball, or drop down to the FCS. I don't know which programs fall into this group, but looking at programs with the smallest budgets, and small alumni bases, would be a good place to start. I think they are the most at risk.

Honest question, how do teams like North Texas, that have money issues and small fan basses survive this?

This is especially true for Conference USA as they are in the midst of tv contract negotiations. What network puts money into Conference USA in this post P5 world? Especially as the conference has only two teams, USM and Marshall, that have any name recognition or have done anything worth note in College Football. Also, with so many questions about the relevance about so many G5 schools in the next 5 years because of scheduling issues and competitive challenges, I think the conference is in deep, deep trouble, as are most of its teams.

What??? Your perception of our university is off.

Our athletic department doesn't have money issues. UNT's athletic budget is just under $30 million for this season. That's an increase over last season, and about the same as Wyoming's athletic budget. I believe ECU's athletic budget was around $35 million. I don't think we are too far from what ECU is doing.

North Texas has a very large fan base. UNT is the fourth largest university in Texas, right behind Houston. We have a few hundred thousand alums living around the Dallas area. We just have to get them to the stadium. North Texas took roughly 35,000 fans to the Heart of Dallas Bowl last season. We have fans. We just have to keep winning.

Just like the AAC, North Texas and the rest of C-USA are going to do what they can to try and keep up with the P5s. Over the next several seasons we will find out what that will entail. North Texas has a respectable athletic budget, with the ability to increase athletic spending, a very desirable media market, and one of the largest alumni bases in Texas. North Texas will survive this.

(08-12-2014 11:02 AM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(08-12-2014 08:52 AM)baruna falls Wrote:  

(08-11-2014 10:58 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  I don't see teams giving up, so much as being priced out of relevance. Schools with smaller athletic budgets, that can't or won't increase them, simple won't be able to offer some of the new luxuries that will come from the recent autonomy ruling, like the full cost of attendance. Programs that don't spend those extra funds will lose in recruiting, and become less competitive, and see attendance and athletic funding decrease. I see that becoming a repeating cycle for them. Those programs will become less and less competitive and relevant every year, until they either drop football, to save basketball, or drop down to the FCS. I don't know which programs fall into this group, but looking at programs with the smallest budgets, and small alumni bases, would be a good place to start. I think they are the most at risk.

Honest question, how do teams like North Texas, that have money issues and small fan basses survive this?

This is especially true for Conference USA as they are in the midst of tv contract negotiations. What network puts money into Conference USA in this post P5 world? Especially as the conference has only two teams, USM and Marshall, that have any name recognition or have done anything worth note in College Football. Also, with so many questions about the relevance about so many G5 schools in the next 5 years because of scheduling issues and competitive challenges, I think the conference is in deep, deep trouble, as are most of its teams.

What??? Your perception of our university is off.

Our athletic department doesn't have money issues. UNT's athletic budget is just under $30 million for this season. That's an increase over last season, and about the same as Wyoming's athletic budget. I believe ECU's athletic budget was around $35 million. I don't think we are too far from what ECU is doing.

North Texas has a very large fan base. UNT is the fourth largest university in Texas, right behind Houston. We have a few hundred thousand alums living around the Dallas area. We just have to get them to the stadium. North Texas took roughly 35,000 fans to the Heart of Dallas Bowl last season. We have fans. We just have to keep winning.

Just like the AAC, North Texas and the rest of C-USA are going to do what they can to try and keep up with the P5s. Over the next several seasons we will find out what that will entail. North Texas has a respectable athletic budget, with the ability to increase athletic spending, a very desirable media market, and one of the largest alumni bases in Texas. North Texas will survive this.

Man CUSA sucks. That is why all of the good teams left.

(08-12-2014 11:02 AM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(08-12-2014 08:52 AM)baruna falls Wrote:  

(08-11-2014 10:58 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  I don't see teams giving up, so much as being priced out of relevance. Schools with smaller athletic budgets, that can't or won't increase them, simple won't be able to offer some of the new luxuries that will come from the recent autonomy ruling, like the full cost of attendance. Programs that don't spend those extra funds will lose in recruiting, and become less competitive, and see attendance and athletic funding decrease. I see that becoming a repeating cycle for them. Those programs will become less and less competitive and relevant every year, until they either drop football, to save basketball, or drop down to the FCS. I don't know which programs fall into this group, but looking at programs with the smallest budgets, and small alumni bases, would be a good place to start. I think they are the most at risk.

Honest question, how do teams like North Texas, that have money issues and small fan basses survive this?

This is especially true for Conference USA as they are in the midst of tv contract negotiations. What network puts money into Conference USA in this post P5 world? Especially as the conference has only two teams, USM and Marshall, that have any name recognition or have done anything worth note in College Football. Also, with so many questions about the relevance about so many G5 schools in the next 5 years because of scheduling issues and competitive challenges, I think the conference is in deep, deep trouble, as are most of its teams.

What??? Your perception of our university is off.

Our athletic department doesn't have money issues. UNT's athletic budget is just under $30 million for this season. That's an increase over last season, and about the same as Wyoming's athletic budget. I believe ECU's athletic budget was around $35 million. I don't think we are too far from what ECU is doing.

North Texas has a very large fan base. UNT is the fourth largest university in Texas, right behind Houston. We have a few hundred thousand alums living around the Dallas area. We just have to get them to the stadium. North Texas took roughly 35,000 fans to the Heart of Dallas Bowl last season. We have fans. We just have to keep winning.

Just like the AAC, North Texas and the rest of C-USA are going to do what they can to try and keep up with the P5s. Over the next several seasons we will find out what that will entail. North Texas has a respectable athletic budget, with the ability to increase athletic spending, a very desirable media market, and one of the largest alumni bases in Texas. North Texas will survive this.

Did North Texas not have to make budget cuts this year and was mot school revenue over reported by 20 million. As far as attendance, most schools are seeing a drop i attendance figures.

It is very unrealistic to think that North Texas will significantly increase numbers at games, very few schools see their numbers ever go up, so i dont buy Conference. USA will give you guys a chance t9 bump mumbers.

(08-12-2014 11:02 AM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  What??? Your perception of our university is off.

Our athletic department doesn't have money issues. UNT's athletic budget is just under $30 million for this season. That's an increase over last season, and about the same as Wyoming's athletic budget. I believe ECU's athletic budget was around $35 million. I don't think we are too far from what ECU is doing.

North Texas has a very large fan base. ....

Stopped reading here.

2013 - 21,030
2012 - 18,927
2011 - 18,864
2010 - 17,718
2009 - 18,228

Give it a rest dude. Have you ever sold out Krispy Kreme stadium?

(08-12-2014 11:12 AM)baruna falls Wrote:  

(08-12-2014 11:02 AM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(08-12-2014 08:52 AM)baruna falls Wrote:  

(08-11-2014 10:58 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  I don't see teams giving up, so much as being priced out of relevance. Schools with smaller athletic budgets, that can't or won't increase them, simple won't be able to offer some of the new luxuries that will come from the recent autonomy ruling, like the full cost of attendance. Programs that don't spend those extra funds will lose in recruiting, and become less competitive, and see attendance and athletic funding decrease. I see that becoming a repeating cycle for them. Those programs will become less and less competitive and relevant every year, until they either drop football, to save basketball, or drop down to the FCS. I don't know which programs fall into this group, but looking at programs with the smallest budgets, and small alumni bases, would be a good place to start. I think they are the most at risk.

Honest question, how do teams like North Texas, that have money issues and small fan basses survive this?

This is especially true for Conference USA as they are in the midst of tv contract negotiations. What network puts money into Conference USA in this post P5 world? Especially as the conference has only two teams, USM and Marshall, that have any name recognition or have done anything worth note in College Football. Also, with so many questions about the relevance about so many G5 schools in the next 5 years because of scheduling issues and competitive challenges, I think the conference is in deep, deep trouble, as are most of its teams.

What??? Your perception of our university is off.

Our athletic department doesn't have money issues. UNT's athletic budget is just under $30 million for this season. That's an increase over last season, and about the same as Wyoming's athletic budget. I believe ECU's athletic budget was around $35 million. I don't think we are too far from what ECU is doing.

North Texas has a very large fan base. UNT is the fourth largest university in Texas, right behind Houston. We have a few hundred thousand alums living around the Dallas area. We just have to get them to the stadium. North Texas took roughly 35,000 fans to the Heart of Dallas Bowl last season. We have fans. We just have to keep winning.

Just like the AAC, North Texas and the rest of C-USA are going to do what they can to try and keep up with the P5s. Over the next several seasons we will find out what that will entail. North Texas has a respectable athletic budget, with the ability to increase athletic spending, a very desirable media market, and one of the largest alumni bases in Texas. North Texas will survive this.

Did North Texas not have to make budget cuts this year and was mot school revenue over reported by 20 million. As far as attendance, most schools are seeing a drop i attendance figures.

It is very unrealistic to think that North Texas will significantly increase numbers at games, very few schools see their numbers ever go up, so i dont buy Conference. USA will give you guys a chance t9 bump mumbers.

The university did have to cut about $20 million from their budget, but the athletic department still saw its budget increase. The budget will be just under $30 million this season, and will increase next season too.

UNT's attendance has increased over the last several seasons. We are not selling out games yet, but last season we had an average attendance of just over 21,000, and season ticket sales are up for this season. Fans are beginning to buy into what Coach Mac is building. We should have a very large crowd when we host SMU in week 2.

Coach McCarney recently said the game would be on national T.V. As far as I know it is scheduled to be on Fox Sports Southwest, but maybe it got picked up for Fox Sports 1. If you can get the game, you should watch, and then decide how you feel about what North Texas is doing, and if you think we can survive.

(08-12-2014 11:12 AM)baruna falls Wrote:  

(08-12-2014 11:02 AM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(08-12-2014 08:52 AM)baruna falls Wrote:  

(08-11-2014 10:58 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  I don't see teams giving up, so much as being priced out of relevance. Schools with smaller athletic budgets, that can't or won't increase them, simple won't be able to offer some of the new luxuries that will come from the recent autonomy ruling, like the full cost of attendance. Programs that don't spend those extra funds will lose in recruiting, and become less competitive, and see attendance and athletic funding decrease. I see that becoming a repeating cycle for them. Those programs will become less and less competitive and relevant every year, until they either drop football, to save basketball, or drop down to the FCS. I don't know which programs fall into this group, but looking at programs with the smallest budgets, and small alumni bases, would be a good place to start. I think they are the most at risk.

Honest question, how do teams like North Texas, that have money issues and small fan basses survive this?

This is especially true for Conference USA as they are in the midst of tv contract negotiations. What network puts money into Conference USA in this post P5 world? Especially as the conference has only two teams, USM and Marshall, that have any name recognition or have done anything worth note in College Football. Also, with so many questions about the relevance about so many G5 schools in the next 5 years because of scheduling issues and competitive challenges, I think the conference is in deep, deep trouble, as are most of its teams.

What??? Your perception of our university is off.

Our athletic department doesn't have money issues. UNT's athletic budget is just under $30 million for this season. That's an increase over last season, and about the same as Wyoming's athletic budget. I believe ECU's athletic budget was around $35 million. I don't think we are too far from what ECU is doing.

North Texas has a very large fan base. UNT is the fourth largest university in Texas, right behind Houston. We have a few hundred thousand alums living around the Dallas area. We just have to get them to the stadium. North Texas took roughly 35,000 fans to the Heart of Dallas Bowl last season. We have fans. We just have to keep winning.

Just like the AAC, North Texas and the rest of C-USA are going to do what they can to try and keep up with the P5s. Over the next several seasons we will find out what that will entail. North Texas has a respectable athletic budget, with the ability to increase athletic spending, a very desirable media market, and one of the largest alumni bases in Texas. North Texas will survive this.

Did North Texas not have to make budget cuts this year and was mot school revenue over reported by 20 million. As far as attendance, most schools are seeing a drop i attendance figures.

It is very unrealistic to think that North Texas will significantly increase numbers at games, very few schools see their numbers ever go up, so i dont buy Conference. USA will give you guys a chance t9 bump mumbers.

A school the size of UNT likely has an operating budget between a half billion and a billion dollars. $20m in cuts to the university budget is likely much less than 5% of the total university operating budget.

(08-12-2014 09:53 AM)UConnFB Wrote:  

(08-11-2014 11:49 AM)Cyniclone Wrote:  

(08-11-2014 11:45 AM)UConnFB Wrote:  

(08-11-2014 11:03 AM)Cyniclone Wrote:  

(08-11-2014 10:56 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  Why would they have to quit? The might be content at leeching the revenues and sucking at sports.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

The Big East turfed Temple for not being competitive in football.

In this case a conference would have greater cause because not only would a program not be competitive on the field, but by not making the effort to keep up, they're signalling to the conference that they're not fully vested in its success the way others would be. And that could get them drummed out.

Temple at that time was only an associate member, it wasn't like it was a full member. If the B1G were to give Northwestern the boot, something like that would be unprecedented.

That would never happen because Northwestern has long-term relationships with most of the Big 10 members. No G5 program has that kind of relationship with both its conference and most of its members. It's a lot easier for the Sun Belt to send ULM packing than it would be for a P5 to disassociate from a lagging member.

Good grief. I just cited Northwestern to explain how difficult and unprecedented giving the boot to some school would be. Stop reading things so literally.

And for the record The University of Chicago "gave up" on the B1G long ago, and they still have a standing invite to return should they chose to do so.

The Ivy League, as a conference "gave up" long ago.

Northwestern is not a good example because of the nature of the conference relationships. Why you brought it up in this context is beyond my reckoning. It would be difficult for an established conference to boot a longtime member, therefore it would also be difficult for the Sun Belt to remove UL-Monroe or CUSA to remove Florida International? Illogical.

Texas-Pan American got booted from the Sun Belt (or at the very least was given significant encouragement to leave of their own volition). That's also not quite the same (no football), but it's closer to the mark because you're not breaking up long-term relationships like you would in the P5 conferences.

Give up is a bit of a loaded term. Assuming all the P5 only playing each other talk is just talk then the autonomy ruling really changes nothing for the bottom of the G5. They couldn't afford to be competitive with the P5 before and they still can't. Now if the question is if buy game money disappears completely which G5 schools can't afford to keep operating then it gets interesting. That's probably a pretty decent number. Not going to speculate on who it would be because I don't know.

(08-12-2014 12:16 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  

(08-12-2014 09:53 AM)UConnFB Wrote:  

(08-11-2014 11:49 AM)Cyniclone Wrote:  

(08-11-2014 11:45 AM)UConnFB Wrote:  

(08-11-2014 11:03 AM)Cyniclone Wrote:  The Big East turfed Temple for not being competitive in football.

In this case a conference would have greater cause because not only would a program not be competitive on the field, but by not making the effort to keep up, they're signalling to the conference that they're not fully vested in its success the way others would be. And that could get them drummed out.

Temple at that time was only an associate member, it wasn't like it was a full member. If the B1G were to give Northwestern the boot, something like that would be unprecedented.

That would never happen because Northwestern has long-term relationships with most of the Big 10 members. No G5 program has that kind of relationship with both its conference and most of its members. It's a lot easier for the Sun Belt to send ULM packing than it would be for a P5 to disassociate from a lagging member.

Good grief. I just cited Northwestern to explain how difficult and unprecedented giving the boot to some school would be. Stop reading things so literally.

And for the record The University of Chicago "gave up" on the B1G long ago, and they still have a standing invite to return should they chose to do so.

The Ivy League, as a conference "gave up" long ago.

Northwestern is not a good example because of the nature of the conference relationships. Why you brought it up in this context is beyond my reckoning. It would be difficult for an established conference to boot a longtime member, therefore it would also be difficult for the Sun Belt to remove UL-Monroe or CUSA to remove Florida International? Illogical.

Texas-Pan American got booted from the Sun Belt (or at the very least was given significant encouragement to leave of their own volition). That's also not quite the same (no football), but it's closer to the mark because you're not breaking up long-term relationships like you would in the P5 conferences.

From the sounds of things, not much isn't beyond your reckoning.

Northwestern is the perfect example because of some of the reasons you stated.

But since you are still lost.... I stated Northwestern because they are P5 with a small fanbase. They will always be in the B1G unless they choose to leave on their own despite the fact that they along with schools like Wake Forest might have been one of the last picked if we were in the playground picking sides.

The P5 will take care of their own, first the seperate and seal off the bulkhead and hope to drown the rest of us and then once that's complete, they will come up with some sort of revenue sharing model to keep their "small market" products afloat.