As you know, UMass was recently given an ultimatum: join the MAC for all sports or you're kicked out. UMass decided to leave, supposedly because they wanted to keep playing A-10 basketball.

Does this mean that A-10 basketball brings in more money than MAC football?

The A-10 got 10 NCAA tourney credits last year. This site indicates that each credit is worth between 1.5 and 1.9 million (spread out over 6 years). They've averaged 8 credits/year over the past 5 years, so that's $12-17 million/year. Their TV contract is $5 mil/year, so they should distribute 17-22 million, or $1.06 - 1.38 million per school.

This site claims that the MAC's new contract gives them $650,000 per school per year. They've averaged 2 tourney credits per year over the last 5 years, ($3-3.8 mil total, or $250k-$310k/school), for a total of $900-960k per school.

Am I doing this math right? If so, it would seem that for UMass, basketball brings in a lot more money than football.

The new CFP money has a big impact, though. That's going to be around $15 million to $20 million per year for each G5 conference, so each G5 member is going to get around $1 million each (give or take a little bit) simply for being an FBS school. That's why no school would ever willingly move down from FBS to FCS in this environment - instead, there's a surplus of schools all trying to move UP from FCS to FBS.

Now, UMass specifically looks like one of the handful of schools where basketball revenue is fairly high relative to football revenue. As a result, especially as a G5 school, they have to take into account basketball revenue much more. (At the P5 level, football is so dominant for every athletic program that even the traditional basketball blue bloods like Kentucky, Kansas, Indiana, UNC and Duke still have to make almost 100% football-based decisions when it comes to conference realignment.)

In terms of what combo would make the most revenue for UMass, here is the likely ranking of the semi-plausible options (i.e. they're not getting into the P5 and it wouldn't make sense for them to go to the MWC):

(1) AAC all-sports
(2) MAC football/A-10 basketball
(3) Sun Belt or C-USA football/A-10 basketball
(4) Athletic department is screwed if it can't do any of the above

My guess is that maintaining FBS football and A-10 basketball (or better) are priorities #1a and #1b for UMass, which puts them in a bind. As much as a lot of fans here always propose that low attendance FBS schools need to drop down to FCS, as I've stated before, athletic departments have NO rational reason to do that whatsoever, especially with the new CFP money coming in. However, basketball is disproportionately important to UMass both fan-wise and financially, so they can't throw that program under the bus by going to the MAC, Sun Belt or C-USA. (Their dream is to be in the AAC.) There's no good answer unless the Sun-Belt or C-USA throws them a football-only lifeline. I certainly wouldn't want to be running that athletic department right now.

(08-21-2014 09:53 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  The new CFP money has a big impact, though. That's going to be around $15 million to $20 million per year for each G5 conference, so each G5 member is going to get around $1 million each (give or take a little bit) simply for being an FBS school. That's why no school would ever willingly move down from FBS to FCS in this environment - instead, there's a surplus of schools all trying to move UP from FCS to FBS.

Now, UMass specifically looks like one of the handful of schools where basketball revenue is fairly high relative to football revenue. As a result, especially as a G5 school, they have to take into account basketball revenue much more. (At the P5 level, football is so dominant for every athletic program that even the traditional basketball blue bloods like Kentucky, Kansas, Indiana, UNC and Duke still have to make almost 100% football-based decisions when it comes to conference realignment.)

In terms of what combo would make the most revenue for UMass, here is the likely ranking of the semi-plausible options (i.e. they're not getting into the P5 and it wouldn't make sense for them to go to the MWC):

(1) AAC all-sports
(2) MAC football/A-10 basketball
(3) Sun Belt or C-USA football/A-10 basketball
(4) Athletic department is screwed if it can't do any of the above

My guess is that maintaining FBS football and A-10 basketball (or better) are priorities #1a and #1b for UMass, which puts them in a bind. As much as a lot of fans here always propose that low attendance FBS schools need to drop down to FCS, as I've stated before, athletic departments have NO rational reason to do that whatsoever, especially with the new CFP money coming in. However, basketball is disproportionately important to UMass both fan-wise and financially, so they can't throw that program under the bus by going to the MAC, Sun Belt or C-USA. (Their dream is to be in the AAC.) There's no good answer unless the Sun-Belt or C-USA throws them a football-only lifeline. I certainly wouldn't want to be running that athletic department right now.

$1 million a year doesn't offset the bigger expenses that low level FBS schools have than the FCS schools. The biggest money losers in football are the FBS schools, not FCS. In FBS, you've got 22 extra football scholarships and 22 extra women's scholarships. You also have to sponsor two more sports. Your coaches salaries escalate dramatically. Travel expenses likely go up.

That has to be offset with the $1 million from the playoff, 500k additional you make on a "buy" game and other revenues. If you are 2-10, you make actually have less attendance than 9-2 at FCS. And basketball attendance may go down if you are joining MAC, Sun Belt or CUSA. A10, MVC and the Colonial (at least prior to last realignment) are generally stronger basketball conferences. And the facility costs to be competitive are very high.

Of course, everyone going up thinks they will be a UCF or Boise, not an Idaho or Eastern Michigan. But if you are the latter, you are better off in FCS. The negative publicity partly offsets any intangible/donation benefits from being in FBS.

Dropping football entirely is something schools like Eastern Michigan (little support or success) should think about. Focus resources on basketball and get into the MVC or A10. That would be better than bottom of FBS or good in FCS.

New MAC TV deal was later confirmed to be $10 million per year for 10 years starting in year 3.

$10m is $833,000 per school not the number you cited. Its less than $200,000 more but should be noted.

Bottom line is that if UMass can find a football only in the Sun Belt they are better off staying in the A10, if they can't secure that and have to go independent than they will struggle staying in A10.

I don't see why the AAC would split their CFP and TV money with UMass just to bring an average basketball team to the conference and bring a football team that would really hurt their football SOS and cost them more money and chance at Access Bowl and less payout for the 2nd Tier G5 payout of higher conference rated payouts. Remember that the highest rated Sagarin-like rated conferences get higher payouts.

1st - $4m
2nd - $3.5m
3rd - $3m
4th - $2.5m
Last - $2m

So besides just splitting more TV and CFP money with UMass, the AAC would also probably cost themselves another $500,000 in conference ranking due to weakened Sagarin rating and also hurt their chances at Access Bowl (adding UMass and Army together would make it even worse). None of this takes into account UMass doesn't have bathrooms at their stadium and is considering dropping 3 scholarships in football.

Why would the AAC or Sun Belt add UMass? Doesnt make financial sense at all. MAC boosted our overall payouts and conference SOS for a reason.

I think UMass is one of those schools that can be a Boise or Central Florida. But they don't do that by talking about offering only 82 scholarships. And they have to figure out how to get to a 30k (at least) stadium on campus.

However, there are a lot of MAC and Sun Belt schools that should seriously consider alternatives.

(08-21-2014 09:23 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  As you know, UMass was recently given an ultimatum: join the MAC for all sports or you're kicked out. UMass decided to leave, supposedly because they wanted to keep playing A-10 basketball.

Does this mean that A-10 basketball brings in more money than MAC football?

The A-10 got 10 NCAA tourney credits last year. This site indicates that each credit is worth between 1.5 and 1.9 million (spread out over 6 years). They've averaged 8 credits/year over the past 5 years, so that's $12-17 million/year. Their TV contract is $5 mil/year, so they should distribute 17-22 million, or $1.06 - 1.38 million per school.

This site claims that the MAC's new contract gives them $650,000 per school per year. They've averaged 2 tourney credits per year over the last 5 years, ($3-3.8 mil total, or $250k-$310k/school), for a total of $900-960k per school.

Am I doing this math right? If so, it would seem that for UMass, basketball brings in a lot more money than football.

With CFP money added to the equation UMass would have received more in conference distributions from the MAC than they will from the A-10. However, the difference conference distributions isn't necessarily or even likely to be large enough to compensate for three other factors.

Playing men's basketball in the MAC would significantly reduce ticket sales and revenue. Also, UMass travel expenses would have increased significantly in the MAC. All but three A-10 members are within bus distance of UMass and three, at most, MAC members are within bus distance. Those two things alone would be at least an equal if not greater amount than the additional revenue they would have received in conference distributions from the MAC. Additionally, outside of MA, UMass draws students from other NE states, NY and the Mid-Atlantic and that's where their non-MA alumni are concentrated as well.

Joining a conference based in the eastern Midwest makes no sense unless there is an very large difference in revenue which isn't the case with joining the MAC. UMass is in a tough spot, but they made the correct decision.

MAC was heavily involved in TV negotiations when they cut UMass free. If UMass and their market was worth a dime, the MAC wouldn't have let them loose. They obviously weren't worth much in ESPN's eyes.

End of story.


.

(08-21-2014 10:40 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-21-2014 09:53 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  The new CFP money has a big impact, though. That's going to be around $15 million to $20 million per year for each G5 conference, so each G5 member is going to get around $1 million each (give or take a little bit) simply for being an FBS school. That's why no school would ever willingly move down from FBS to FCS in this environment - instead, there's a surplus of schools all trying to move UP from FCS to FBS.

Now, UMass specifically looks like one of the handful of schools where basketball revenue is fairly high relative to football revenue. As a result, especially as a G5 school, they have to take into account basketball revenue much more. (At the P5 level, football is so dominant for every athletic program that even the traditional basketball blue bloods like Kentucky, Kansas, Indiana, UNC and Duke still have to make almost 100% football-based decisions when it comes to conference realignment.)

In terms of what combo would make the most revenue for UMass, here is the likely ranking of the semi-plausible options (i.e. they're not getting into the P5 and it wouldn't make sense for them to go to the MWC):

(1) AAC all-sports
(2) MAC football/A-10 basketball
(3) Sun Belt or C-USA football/A-10 basketball
(4) Athletic department is screwed if it can't do any of the above

My guess is that maintaining FBS football and A-10 basketball (or better) are priorities #1a and #1b for UMass, which puts them in a bind. As much as a lot of fans here always propose that low attendance FBS schools need to drop down to FCS, as I've stated before, athletic departments have NO rational reason to do that whatsoever, especially with the new CFP money coming in. However, basketball is disproportionately important to UMass both fan-wise and financially, so they can't throw that program under the bus by going to the MAC, Sun Belt or C-USA. (Their dream is to be in the AAC.) There's no good answer unless the Sun-Belt or C-USA throws them a football-only lifeline. I certainly wouldn't want to be running that athletic department right now.

$1 million a year doesn't offset the bigger expenses that low level FBS schools have than the FCS schools. The biggest money losers in football are the FBS schools, not FCS. In FBS, you've got 22 extra football scholarships and 22 extra women's scholarships. You also have to sponsor two more sports. Your coaches salaries escalate dramatically. Travel expenses likely go up.

That has to be offset with the $1 million from the playoff, 500k additional you make on a "buy" game and other revenues. If you are 2-10, you make actually have less attendance than 9-2 at FCS. And basketball attendance may go down if you are joining MAC, Sun Belt or CUSA. A10, MVC and the Colonial (at least prior to last realignment) are generally stronger basketball conferences. And the facility costs to be competitive are very high.

Of course, everyone going up thinks they will be a UCF or Boise, not an Idaho or Eastern Michigan. But if you are the latter, you are better off in FCS. The negative publicity partly offsets any intangible/donation benefits from being in FBS.

Dropping football entirely is something schools like Eastern Michigan (little support or success) should think about. Focus resources on basketball and get into the MVC or A10. That would be better than bottom of FBS or good in FCS.

I get what you're saying, but I don't think it's an accident that schools are willing to go independent or join far-flung leagues as football-only members as FBS schools than drop back down to FCS. Athletic department accounting practices that show a "loss" for football and/or men's basketball are generally due to shifting around allocations of revenue and expenses (just as the annual stories about schools "losing" money on bowl games aren't taking into account the full picture of conference-level bowl money that those schools are taking in). As a general matter, FBS football and men's basketball taken by themselves are profitable at Division I schools. At the very least, FBS football has a *chance* to be profitable, whereas FCS football is a guaranteed money-loser. I understand the calls to "cull the herd" of FBS schools, but there is absolutely no FBS school that would *willingly* drop down to FCS (and the NCAA certainly hasn't shown any interest in enforcing any attendance-based rules regarding FBS membership).

Also, "moving up" in basketball conferences isn't necessarily any easier for FCS or non-football schools than it is for "moving up" in football conferences. It's not as if though Eastern Michigan can drop football, concentrate more resources in basketball, and then expect an invite from the A-10 or MVC (much less the Big East). The non-football basketball leagues that are worth anything have similar institutional biases that the FBS leagues have. UMass is a bit unique in being a flagship school with a solid basketball fan base, so they at least have some value in a basketball-based conference realignment market. Most of the MAC schools, though, would just end up being in a basketball league that's no better (and probably worse) than the current MAC. Hoping to become the next Gonzaga or VCU in basketball is just as much of a pipe dream goal for non-power athletic departments as becoming the next Boise State in football.

(08-21-2014 09:23 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  As you know, UMass was recently given an ultimatum: join the MAC for all sports or you're kicked out. UMass decided to leave, supposedly because they wanted to keep playing A-10 basketball.

Does this mean that A-10 basketball brings in more money than MAC football?

The A-10 got 10 NCAA tourney credits last year. This site indicates that each credit is worth between 1.5 and 1.9 million (spread out over 6 years). They've averaged 8 credits/year over the past 5 years, so that's $12-17 million/year. Their TV contract is $5 mil/year, so they should distribute 17-22 million, or $1.06 - 1.38 million per school.

This site claims that the MAC's new contract gives them $650,000 per school per year. They've averaged 2 tourney credits per year over the last 5 years, ($3-3.8 mil total, or $250k-$310k/school), for a total of $900-960k per school.

Am I doing this math right? If so, it would seem that for UMass, basketball brings in a lot more money than football.

Does the A10 distribute Tournament money equally? UMass has 1 appearance since 1998 and hasn't won a tournament game since 1996, are they getting the same cut as the teams that have actually earned the credits?

As a football only member of the MAC UMass would not be paid a full share compared to the full time teams either. So UMass is associated with lots of revenue but how much of it are they actually keeping for themselves.

The AAC is not adding UMass

(08-21-2014 11:33 AM)NBPirate Wrote:  The AAC is not adding UMass

The SunBelt is also not adding UMass.

(08-21-2014 09:53 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  The new CFP money has a big impact, though. That's going to be around $15 million to $20 million per year for each G5 conference, so each G5 member is going to get around $1 million each (give or take a little bit) simply for being an FBS school. That's why no school would ever willingly move down from FBS to FCS in this environment - instead, there's a surplus of schools all trying to move UP from FCS to FBS.

Each member of a G5 conference will get around $1 million/year from the CFP. But the indies other than Notre Dame get much less. This year, Army, Navy, and BYU will split $922,658. That's $307,552.66 each. Presumably, that same small pie will be divided between Army, BYU, and UMass, once UMass becomes an indy.

(08-21-2014 09:23 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  As you know, UMass was recently given an ultimatum: join the MAC for all sports or you're kicked out. UMass decided to leave, supposedly because they wanted to keep playing A-10 basketball.

Does this mean that A-10 basketball brings in more money than MAC football?

At present, it does. Whether it would in 2017 when the average $10m/yr ESPN fees come into play is more up in the air.

Quote: The A-10 got 10 NCAA tourney credits last year. This site indicates that each credit is worth between 1.5 and 1.9 million (spread out over 6 years). They've averaged 8 credits/year over the past 5 years, so that's $12-17 million/year. Their TV contract is $5 mil/year, so they should distribute 17-22 million, or $1.06 - 1.38 million per school. ...

Am I doing this math right? If so, it would seem that for UMass, basketball brings in a lot more money than football.

No, because you are leaving out ticket revenues and the fact that A-10 does not distribute its credits evenly, but distributes 75% to the school that appeared in the game that attracted the credit and 25% into the pool distributed to each member.

You are also omitting ~$850k in CFP distributions that UMass would be in line for as a full member (if UMass had joined all-sports, the MAC would likely have invited another all-sports school for 14, the $1m per school maxes out at $12m per conference, so $12m/14 = ~$850,000).

There's no indication that UMass would increase the media value of MAC sports to ESPN, so if UMass joined, the $10/yr to the conference over 2017-2027 would be divided 14 ways as well, so total payout of around ~$710,000, for a total baseline of ~$1.6m.

But the unknown is the opportunity cost, since the MAC does not pay nearly as large a bonus to the school going to the NCAA, and a school that does not win the conference tournament is much more likely to go to the NCAA out of the A-10 ... 2-4 more NCAA appearances in the next six years would yield much more out of the A10, as well as being more likely.

And BBall ticket sales for the A-10 conference games are going to be a lot healthier than BBall ticket sales for MAC conference games.

(08-21-2014 11:38 AM)ValleyBoy Wrote:  

(08-21-2014 11:33 AM)NBPirate Wrote:  The AAC is not adding UMass

The SunBelt is also not adding UMass.

Yeah. Also stated with confidence in forums back when it became apparent that the WAC was dropping out of the FBS conference business: the Sunbelt is not adding Idaho.

MAC was heavily involved in TV negotiations when they cut UMass free. If UMass and their market was worth a dime, the MAC wouldn't have let them loose. They obviously weren't worth much in ESPN's eyes.

End of story.


Nobody is adding UMass......

(08-21-2014 12:06 PM)Miami (Oh) Yeah ! Wrote:  MAC was heavily involved in TV negotiations when they cut UMass free. If UMass and their market was worth a dime, the MAC wouldn't have let them loose. They obviously weren't worth much in ESPN's eyes.

End of story.


Nobody is adding UMass......

The MAC obviously wanted UMASS basketball in the conference, which I can understand. Consequently, the MAC was willing to keep UMASS if it had placed its basketball (and other sports) in the conference.

(08-21-2014 12:01 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(08-21-2014 11:38 AM)ValleyBoy Wrote:  

(08-21-2014 11:33 AM)NBPirate Wrote:  The AAC is not adding UMass

The SunBelt is also not adding UMass.

Yeah. Also stated with confidence in forums back when it became apparent that the WAC was dropping out of the FBS conference business: the Sunbelt is not adding Idaho.

I think the Sunbelt might take UMass as a football only. After JMU made it clear they weren't joining, the Sunbelt announced that they were not going to pursue any more FCS call ups. Well, who does that leave? Army is not joining the Sunbelt. So that pretty much leaves UMass. Really, I don't think UMass will have a choice. They're going to have trouble getting enough home games a year vs. FBS opponents to stay qualified. Even though it makes no sense geographically, I could see it happening.

(08-21-2014 12:17 PM)Underdog Wrote:  

(08-21-2014 12:06 PM)Miami (Oh) Yeah ! Wrote:  MAC was heavily involved in TV negotiations when they cut UMass free. If UMass and their market was worth a dime, the MAC wouldn't have let them loose. They obviously weren't worth much in ESPN's eyes.

End of story.


Nobody is adding UMass......

The MAC obviously wanted UMASS basketball in the conference, which I can understand. Consequently, the MAC was willing to keep UMASS if it had placed its basketball (and other sports) in the conference.

Contractually, we were OBLIGATED to offer them an all-sports invitation. This doesn't mean that after new discoveries of CFP payouts and TV negotiations we still necessarily wanted to offer them an all-sports invitation. Big difference.

.

(08-21-2014 09:23 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  As you know, UMass was recently given an ultimatum: join the MAC for all sports or you're kicked out. UMass decided to leave, supposedly because they wanted to keep playing A-10 basketball.

Does this mean that A-10 basketball brings in more money than MAC football?

The A-10 got 10 NCAA tourney credits last year. This site indicates that each credit is worth between 1.5 and 1.9 million (spread out over 6 years). They've averaged 8 credits/year over the past 5 years, so that's $12-17 million/year. Their TV contract is $5 mil/year, so they should distribute 17-22 million, or $1.06 - 1.38 million per school.

This site claims that the MAC's new contract gives them $650,000 per school per year. They've averaged 2 tourney credits per year over the last 5 years, ($3-3.8 mil total, or $250k-$310k/school), for a total of $900-960k per school.

[b]Am I doing this math right?[/b] If so, it would seem that for UMass, basketball brings in a lot more money than football.

I don't think you are doing the math right. Each tournament game played is worth roughly $250K/yr to the conference. So, if the A-10 were to play in 6 games every year (4 bids, two first round wins) they would get $1.5 million. If they average 8 games a year, they get $2 million.

75% of that money goes to the team that earned the credits, and 25% is divided equally among the 13 members. So, if UMass didn't play in any games during the preceding 6 years, and the A-10 averaged 8 games during that stretch, UMass would get 1/13th of $500K, or a little under $40K per year.

If UMass got invited twice, and won one game, they would have played in 3 games total. At 3 X $250K per game, X 75% for the participant, they would get an additional $560K spread over 6 years, or an average of an additional $90K per year.

So their distribution from NCAAT revenue is probably more in the $100-150K per year range. Add $400K per year from the TV contract and you are receiving $500-550K per year from the A-10. If you are a member of an FBS conference, you will get roughly $1.3 million from the CFP, plus whatever their TV payout is.

Gate receipts are not a significant revenue producer for UMass, so that would only potentially be a factor if they were invited to the AAC, but that's highly unlikely to happen. If the MAC TV deal is worth $800K per school, then it would seem like staying in the MAC at $2 million plus per year is a much better deal than being indy in football and in the A-10 for hoops.

But that's only the revenue side, so you have to also consider any extra travel cost associated with not being in a northeast regional conference. Any way you slice it, UMass doesn't seem to have any options available to it that will let them operate even close to black numbers. The school is going to have to heavily subsidize athletics for the foreseeable future.

The fact is that any difference in conference revenues will be dwarfed by the amount of the subsidy required - enough so that it probably shouldn't even be a factor in their decision. If UMass wants to play FBS football for university marketing reasons, they should do it. But they sure aren't doing it for the money. Their football program isn't going to break even any time soon.

http://wewearthering.com/2014/03/27/atla...all-units/

(08-21-2014 11:50 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(08-21-2014 09:53 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  The new CFP money has a big impact, though. That's going to be around $15 million to $20 million per year for each G5 conference, so each G5 member is going to get around $1 million each (give or take a little bit) simply for being an FBS school. That's why no school would ever willingly move down from FBS to FCS in this environment - instead, there's a surplus of schools all trying to move UP from FCS to FBS.

Each member of a G5 conference will get around $1 million/year from the CFP. But the indies other than Notre Dame get much less. This year, Army, Navy, and BYU will split $922,658. That's $307,552.66 each. Presumably, that same small pie will be divided between Army, BYU, and UMass, once UMass becomes an indy.

Yeah I was thinking that as well...every FBS member gets some money from the CFP TV deal, but the Indy's (except ND via ACC) don't have access to the G5 access spot. So it's not like UMass won't be getting some of that CFP money that the MAC will be getting, just maybe not as much. Consider also that UMass's travel costs in the MAC would be bigger than anyone else's.