(01-19-2015 07:33 PM)ESE84 Wrote:  

(01-19-2015 04:25 PM)goodknightfl Wrote:  I was comparing school to school.

UTSA 27, Houston 7.

Yeah, but if a new best of the rest conf was formed today, which of those schools would be more likely to be on it. We are not talking about a game, but sell ability of a school.

(01-20-2015 12:58 PM)goodknightfl Wrote:  

(01-19-2015 07:33 PM)ESE84 Wrote:  

(01-19-2015 04:25 PM)goodknightfl Wrote:  I was comparing school to school.

UTSA 27, Houston 7.

Yeah, but if a new best of the rest conf was formed today, which of those schools would be more likely to be on it. We are not talking about a game, but sell ability of a school.

UTSA has much more support from the community than Houston....so UTSA would be in it.

(01-20-2015 12:58 PM)goodknightfl Wrote:  

(01-19-2015 07:33 PM)ESE84 Wrote:  

(01-19-2015 04:25 PM)goodknightfl Wrote:  I was comparing school to school.

UTSA 27, Houston 7.

Yeah, but if a new best of the rest conf was formed today, which of those schools would be more likely to be on it. We are not talking about a game, but sell ability of a school.

That perception thing again. Maybe today it would be Houston. Or maybe the powers forming that conference would notice UTSA looks like UTEP; a large alumni base with no NFL competition. The ceiling looks pretty high on UTSA.

I think the whole point in this thread is that FBS is quickly evolving, and the G5 programs who looked solid just a few years ago might not be the same ones leading the charge in 2017.

(01-20-2015 01:26 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(01-20-2015 12:58 PM)goodknightfl Wrote:  

(01-19-2015 07:33 PM)ESE84 Wrote:  

(01-19-2015 04:25 PM)goodknightfl Wrote:  I was comparing school to school.

UTSA 27, Houston 7.

Yeah, but if a new best of the rest conf was formed today, which of those schools would be more likely to be on it. We are not talking about a game, but sell ability of a school.

UTSA has much more support from the community than Houston....so UTSA would be in it.

lol. No, they really don't. Houston actually outdrew UTSA in a disappointing year where the Coogs ended up firing their coach. Next year it wont even be close. That said, what does any of this have to do with CUSA's next contract? I think Fox will want to keep their contract with CUSA---but I doubt they want more games. The key for the CUSA contract in my opinion is NBC. If they express a strong interest in getting into FBS football, CUSA might end up doing fine. I tend to think CBS-Sports is not going to be very aggressive as a bidder (if they bid at all). It would help CUSA if they became at least a minimal bidder---thus putting a floor under the contract that NBC would have to exceed. That would at least keep CUSA safe from a notoriously thrifty NBC coming in with an extreme low ball bid. The AAC didn't have that protection and it hurt them badly in negotiations.

(01-20-2015 01:34 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-20-2015 01:26 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(01-20-2015 12:58 PM)goodknightfl Wrote:  

(01-19-2015 07:33 PM)ESE84 Wrote:  

(01-19-2015 04:25 PM)goodknightfl Wrote:  I was comparing school to school.

UTSA 27, Houston 7.

Yeah, but if a new best of the rest conf was formed today, which of those schools would be more likely to be on it. We are not talking about a game, but sell ability of a school.

UTSA has much more support from the community than Houston....so UTSA would be in it.

lol. No, they really don't. Houston actually outdrew UTSA in a disappointing year where the Coogs ended up firing their coach. Next year it wont even be close. That said, what does any of this have to do with CUSA's next contract? I think Fox will want to keep their contract with CUSA---but I doubt they want more games. The key for the CUSA contract in my opinion is NBC. If they express a strong interest in getting into FBS football, CUSA might end up doing fine. I tend to think CBS-Sports is not going to be very aggressive as a bidder (if they bid at all). It would help CUSA if they became at least a minimal bidder---thus putting a floor under the contract that NBC would have to exceed. That would at least keep CUSA safe from a notoriously thrifty NBC coming in with an extreme low ball bid. The AAC didn't have that protection and it hurt them badly in negotiations.

OK...you are right. You beat UTSA by 800 fans average which UTSA even had a more disappointing year and a losing record. I agree it won't be close next year as UTSA ups the game more.

(01-20-2015 01:50 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(01-20-2015 01:34 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-20-2015 01:26 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(01-20-2015 12:58 PM)goodknightfl Wrote:  

(01-19-2015 07:33 PM)ESE84 Wrote:  UTSA 27, Houston 7.

Yeah, but if a new best of the rest conf was formed today, which of those schools would be more likely to be on it. We are not talking about a game, but sell ability of a school.

UTSA has much more support from the community than Houston....so UTSA would be in it.

lol. No, they really don't. Houston actually outdrew UTSA in a disappointing year where the Coogs ended up firing their coach. Next year it wont even be close. That said, what does any of this have to do with CUSA's next contract? I think Fox will want to keep their contract with CUSA---but I doubt they want more games. The key for the CUSA contract in my opinion is NBC. If they express a strong interest in getting into FBS football, CUSA might end up doing fine. I tend to think CBS-Sports is not going to be very aggressive as a bidder (if they bid at all). It would help CUSA if they became at least a minimal bidder---thus putting a floor under the contract that NBC would have to exceed. That would at least keep CUSA safe from a notoriously thrifty NBC coming in with an extreme low ball bid. The AAC didn't have that protection and it hurt them badly in negotiations.

OK...you are right. You beat UTSA by 800 fans average which UTSA even had a more disappointing year and a losing record. I agree it won't be close next year as UTSA ups the game more.

lol...good luck with that, UTSA is graduating 23 starters. They will be in complete rebuild mode next year.

(01-20-2015 02:05 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-20-2015 01:50 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(01-20-2015 01:34 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-20-2015 01:26 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(01-20-2015 12:58 PM)goodknightfl Wrote:  Yeah, but if a new best of the rest conf was formed today, which of those schools would be more likely to be on it. We are not talking about a game, but sell ability of a school.

UTSA has much more support from the community than Houston....so UTSA would be in it.

lol. No, they really don't. Houston actually outdrew UTSA in a disappointing year where the Coogs ended up firing their coach. Next year it wont even be close. That said, what does any of this have to do with CUSA's next contract? I think Fox will want to keep their contract with CUSA---but I doubt they want more games. The key for the CUSA contract in my opinion is NBC. If they express a strong interest in getting into FBS football, CUSA might end up doing fine. I tend to think CBS-Sports is not going to be very aggressive as a bidder (if they bid at all). It would help CUSA if they became at least a minimal bidder---thus putting a floor under the contract that NBC would have to exceed. That would at least keep CUSA safe from a notoriously thrifty NBC coming in with an extreme low ball bid. The AAC didn't have that protection and it hurt them badly in negotiations.

OK...you are right. You beat UTSA by 800 fans average which UTSA even had a more disappointing year and a losing record. I agree it won't be close next year as UTSA ups the game more.

Are they adding baseball or something? In football, UTSA is graduating 23 starters. They will be in complete rebuild mode next year. I wouldn't be surprised if they don't win a game. Like all sunbelt cities, if your are not winning, interest flounders. I do think there is potential there. Actually, Texas State is the program I could really see doing something. They have that small college town feel---but they are located close enough to two major cities that their alumni bases in both could easily show up for Saturday games. They just need to enjoy a big year and they could really catch on.

They played baseball in the WAC and last year in CUSA and haven't heard of them adding any other sports. Actually, the past year was the rebuilding year as there was a ton of seniors and starters that graduated. However, it seems they are picking up some decent JC's and transfers to help in the interim.
I agree with Texas St. they are the typical college town and feel and is on the rise. And being sandwiched with a 30min drive from Austin or SA gives them a unique advantage for alumni in both cities. Really, wish CUSA would pick them up or the MW. But the MW isn't in a position to add anyone right now until the TV contract is up and pretty much goes for more established schools....but pretty sure they are on the list for MW as Texas St. incubates in the Sun Belt. Not sure if they are academically in line with the AAC, but they could be a good candidate for the AAC also down the road.

(01-20-2015 12:27 PM)freshtop Wrote:  I am betting Fox and NBC combine for about 1.5 mil per team. The caveat will be that many of our games will be on FS2 (which no one watches). NBC puts together a bowl game for us and gets rights to cherry pick a couple games each year (if a team is ranked for example, or if a team hosts a ranked opponent). Basketball is improving and would give both networks content (which again, is sorely missing from FS2). I am hoping we can avoid weeknight games, but if the price is right I wouldn't complain. ESPN owns pretty much everything on the East Coast. C-USA is all that's left for any other network that wants involved in FBS football in the Southeast.

I am not convinced NBC wants in to College football. They are all about experimenting with their NBCSN offerings. They offer a lot of different things and see which moves the needle.

I think if a Big League came open, they'd jump all over it, but until then, they'll be happy with the content they have.

Ultimately CUSA's value will be based off what Fox sees the value of the league has. I don't see ESPN really getting into the negotiations, which means if no one else really bids, Fox can offer what they want and CUSA will have to take it.

(01-17-2015 06:21 PM)Savacool Wrote:  CUSA is nearing the end of its TV contract. As we all know it has lost over the last few years most of the universities in its original TV contract to the AAC and back filled now with former Sunbelt members. How do you think they will do on this renegotiation dollar wise with all of these new members? Can anyone more knowledgeable than me from CUSA fill me in on their expectations of income per university.

Short-ish term contract (in the range of 6 years).

$1 MM/school/year. That's a 20% increase. Probably a bump on the TV exposure as well that helps offset the money a little.

(01-19-2015 04:08 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(01-19-2015 03:47 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(01-19-2015 09:25 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(01-19-2015 05:49 AM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  Savacool is trolling but he actually brings up a good point.

As of right now CUSA gained FIU, FAU, WKU, MTSU UNCC, ODU, UTSA, UNT, La Tech. ( five of the current members are Sun Belt teams, three FCS/start up teams, and La Tech who is in a small market.) This is literally a new conference with the loss of UAB because only Marshall, Rice, USM, and UTEP are all that's left of the left behind teams.

CUSA hast lost UAB, Houston, SMU, ECU, UCF, Tulsa, Tulane, and Memphis.

Regardless of the present state of those teams CUSA lost some pretty well established G5 level programs. And as shown by Memphis given the right coach most of the schools if not all of the schools that left have a huge upside.

I don't think it's feasible for CUSA to get an increase in pay. I think many CUSA better start praying that the contract remains the same. I see something like 900k per team.

I think it'll remain at the same $1 million/team so expecting $14 million/year maybe even a slight increase. The new CUSA has an ever larger footprint than the old CUSA and increase the houldhold footprint by 3.3 million homes.
TV DMA ranking 2014.
CUSA Gains: Miami #16, San Antonio #33, Charlotte #24, Nashville #29, Norfolk MSA #42

CUSA Losses: Orlando #18, Greenville MSA #37, Memphis #50, New Orleans #51, Tulsa #60. [Birmingham #43]

TV housholds: Old CUSA 10.1 million, New CUSA 13.4 million.

I think they'll surprise quite a few people. Gaining 3.4 million households is a big difference. Losing Birmingham decrease the household gains to 2.7 millon but could be offset by who they bring in.

If I were telecasting a checkers tournament in NYC, LA, Chicago, and Philly and college football in Birmingham, Memphis, Little Rock and Shreveport which would command the greater ad dollars.

That's a trick question. Depends on who is the college telecast. But it is entirely possible a game in four smaller markets will command more viewers than garbage in four large.

It is no longer 1980. The technology is in place to know how many viewers a telecast delivers fairly accurately. More likely than not if you have cable or satellite your box is reporting your viewership and being aggregated so subscribers (ad agencies and TV stations) know what channels are drawing viewers in real time.

Market is mostly an out-dated concept and has little meaning to ESPN and Fox Sports.

People have a hard time accepting this concept. It's not about who is in the market it's about who is playing in the market.

People have finally realized that just because something has the potential to happen does not mean it will. UAB, Ga State, UMASS, F_U, etc.

Due to the increase in availability of games it's hard for the "hometown" team to compete with the big name teams.

The Wall Street Journal today had an article on the outlook for Nielsen.

Despite a number of complaints that broadcasters and ad agencies have (mainly related to sample size) the conclusion was the company has a very strong future because Nielsen can deliver two pieces of data that competitors as yet cannot effectively deliver.

The demographic breakdown of who is watching (the leading competitor delivers only cable box and satellite box data and nothing on OTA watchers, and cannot determine who if anyone is actually watching. For example I often forget to turn off my satellite box when I go to bed, for all they know I am actually watching TV from 11:00pm to 3:00 am when the box shuts itself off).

The other data none of the competitors are effectively delivering is information regarding the commercials actually watched. Nielsen can detect if you fast forward.

While media companies especially want the larger sample sizes offered by competitors, ad agencies DO NOT CARE if 2 million or 20 million watch the show, they care HOW MANY WATCHED THE AD and they want the demographic information about the people watching.

Drawing 40% of the three Arkansas markets where all the stations are in Arkansas will draw more viewers than drawing 10% of the Chicago market.

Auburn is worth a lot of money because Auburn draws huge percentages of the markets in Alabama, that makes them more valuable just for what they draw within the state than many large market schools.

Now ASN being an ad hoc OTA network is going to pay more attention to market size than ESPN. They have to compile data from multiple markets to get their audience and there is more guesswork in their numbers. ESPN just wants two things. Deliver desired eyeballs to advertisers and have products that they can leverage into higher carriage fees.

(01-20-2015 12:27 PM)freshtop Wrote:  I am betting Fox and NBC combine for about 1.5 mil per team. The caveat will be that many of our games will be on FS2 (which no one watches). NBC puts together a bowl game for us and gets rights to cherry pick a couple games each year (if a team is ranked for example, or if a team hosts a ranked opponent). Basketball is improving and would give both networks content (which again, is sorely missing from FS2). I am hoping we can avoid weeknight games, but if the price is right I wouldn't complain. ESPN owns pretty much everything on the East Coast. C-USA is all that's left for any other network that wants involved in FBS football in the Southeast.

NBC has entered the bowl business. They will carry the Cure Bowl pitting AAC and Sun Belt next year.

(01-20-2015 05:46 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(01-20-2015 12:27 PM)freshtop Wrote:  I am betting Fox and NBC combine for about 1.5 mil per team. The caveat will be that many of our games will be on FS2 (which no one watches). NBC puts together a bowl game for us and gets rights to cherry pick a couple games each year (if a team is ranked for example, or if a team hosts a ranked opponent). Basketball is improving and would give both networks content (which again, is sorely missing from FS2). I am hoping we can avoid weeknight games, but if the price is right I wouldn't complain. ESPN owns pretty much everything on the East Coast. C-USA is all that's left for any other network that wants involved in FBS football in the Southeast.

NBC has entered the bowl business. They will carry the Cure Bowl pitting AAC and Sun Belt next year.

Yeah, I have a hard time believing NBC Sports Channel doesn't want college athletics content from August till November every year.

(01-18-2015 10:41 AM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  C-USA detractors believe it will be between $1.50 and $2.00 per school per year.

C-USA cheerleaders believe it will be over $2 million per year per school.

Well, I was skeptical, but if these gals think it will be over $2m per school ...

... who am I to argue?

(01-20-2015 05:46 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(01-20-2015 12:27 PM)freshtop Wrote:  I am betting Fox and NBC combine for about 1.5 mil per team. The caveat will be that many of our games will be on FS2 (which no one watches). NBC puts together a bowl game for us and gets rights to cherry pick a couple games each year (if a team is ranked for example, or if a team hosts a ranked opponent). Basketball is improving and would give both networks content (which again, is sorely missing from FS2). I am hoping we can avoid weeknight games, but if the price is right I wouldn't complain. ESPN owns pretty much everything on the East Coast. C-USA is all that's left for any other network that wants involved in FBS football in the Southeast.

NBC has entered the bowl business. They will carry the Cure Bowl pitting AAC and Sun Belt next year.

Very interesting piece of information. I still believe another bowl in the Texas area is going to happen. There is a need, and eventually somebody will do it. I honesty thought the old Little Ceasars Bowl would try to relocate their bowl to that area.

I may be wrong here, but I seem to recall that the schools (with the exception of Memphis) that departed CUSA and joined the AAC would be responsible for making up any lost television revenue. Did I just imagine that?

(01-20-2015 08:53 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-20-2015 05:46 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  NBC has entered the bowl business. They will carry the Cure Bowl pitting AAC and Sun Belt next year.

Very interesting piece of information. I still believe another bowl in the Texas area is going to happen. There is a need, and eventually somebody will do it. I honesty thought the old Little Ceasars Bowl would try to relocate their bowl to that area.

I think Texas is actually problematic. Got to have a locality that wants a game and an appropriate venue.

I've heard there is some interest in San Marcos now but I don't know that it has coalesced into anything yet and I wonder if TXST will devote the effort because such events can suck some of the air out of corporate fund raising and sponsorships. That was one reason Nevada wasn't friendly to a Reno bowl years ago.

Houston has a great venue if the Cougars want in the bowl business. BBVA would be great as long as it has out of state teams. An AAC vs CUSA of UTEP and Houston at BBVA would have a great secondary market.

As for who is actually known to be working on a bowl, there are only two. Little Rock and Los Angeles and the LA group was wanting in the December 24-26 window initially. They were talking Coliseum but 27k seat StubHub seems more realistic.

Charleston has indicated they want one but they have to get the NCAA satisfied on the flag thing.
Chattanooga has made inquiries but don't have an active group.

(01-20-2015 04:12 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  

(01-17-2015 06:21 PM)Savacool Wrote:  CUSA is nearing the end of its TV contract. As we all know it has lost over the last few years most of the universities in its original TV contract to the AAC and back filled now with former Sunbelt members. How do you think they will do on this renegotiation dollar wise with all of these new members? Can anyone more knowledgeable than me from CUSA fill me in on their expectations of income per university.

Short-ish term contract (in the range of 6 years).

$1 MM/school/year. That's a 20% increase. Probably a bump on the TV exposure as well that helps offset the money a little.

There needs to be an end of comparing these 800k, 1 million, 1.2 million dollar TV deals on a percentage basis.

You can only look at the amount of difference in a deal whether it be 200k or 400k more and compare that to an increase/decrease in travel expenses for that school. A full bus league is about 1.2 million less in travel costs, a partial bus like is 600k less in travel costs.

Why do we never hear on here about the percentage of difference between a B1G per school TV payout and the ACC or SEC? That actually might be worth measuring when its 20% on 30 million. Those conferences don't think 5 or 6 million dollars is worth making a move for. They would rather sit in the conference they are in and wait for the next conference money making scheme.

The MAC is making 800% of the SBC on its new TV deal. Congrats on winning the biggest midget contest.

The TV considerations at the G5 is what is the network, what are the rebroadcast rights, how does the rights fee compare to peer conferences, is the TV deal enough to off set the crappy travel we have in this conference?

Quote:Because of the Mountain West’s new national TV bonus structure, the decision comes with a $500,000 bonus for the Broncos and Lobos. The Aztecs and Rebels get nothing for the game, and UNLV is one of three Mountain West teams to go the season without getting any TV payouts.

The new TV deal includes a $300,000 bonus for weekday games and a $500,000 bonus for Saturday games that appear on ESPN, ESPN2, ABC, CBS or NBC. Only games controlled by the Mountain West — either home games or a game featuring two league teams — count. When two Mountain West teams play, they both receive that bonus.

The deal was part of Boise State’s negotiations to “rejoin” the league, although it never actually left. It was a always a favorable deal for the Broncos, who are guaranteed to appear at least three times per year on ESPN, ESPN2 or ABC, so it’s no surprise they came out on top this season with $1.6 million in TV bonus money.

Under the old structure, the league distributed that money equally. This year that would have been about $558,333 per team. Considering the athletics department's financial situation, that's money UNLV could have used.

Mountain West TV Bonuses
Boise State: $1.6 million
Fresno State: $1.3 million
Wyoming: $1 million
San Diego State: $800,000
San Jose State: $600,000
New Mexico: $500,000
Air Force: $300,000
Utah State: $300,000
Nevada: $300,000
Colorado State: $0
Hawaii: $0
UNLV: $0

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2013/nov...ar-footba/

MWC bonus pool money......note that some schools aren't making anything. The value of this bonus pool is only 560k per school.

The base payout is 1 million per school from CBS......Boise then is making 2.6-3.1 mil a year while half the conference hovers around 1 million.

Quote:The CBS Sports deal still pays schools $1 million per year and ESPN has allotted $6 million per year and that is where these bonuses are coming from. The one concern is that if teams exceed the national appearance bonuses that the money could come from the CBS deal or other places within the league, but none will come from NCAA basketball tournament credits.

http://www.mwcconnection.com/football-5/...us-payouts

The lower half of the MWC is making between 1.0-1.3 million per school. Considering CUSA is full of schools with little if any reputation they would be lucky to hit the 1 million per school mark.

My guess is CUSA trades content for cash and lands an 850k TV deal with Fox for a short term.

(01-20-2015 10:10 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(01-20-2015 08:53 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-20-2015 05:46 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  NBC has entered the bowl business. They will carry the Cure Bowl pitting AAC and Sun Belt next year.

Very interesting piece of information. I still believe another bowl in the Texas area is going to happen. There is a need, and eventually somebody will do it. I honesty thought the old Little Ceasars Bowl would try to relocate their bowl to that area.

I think Texas is actually problematic. Got to have a locality that wants a game and an appropriate venue.

I've heard there is some interest in San Marcos now but I don't know that it has coalesced into anything yet and I wonder if TXST will devote the effort because such events can suck some of the air out of corporate fund raising and sponsorships. That was one reason Nevada wasn't friendly to a Reno bowl years ago.

Houston has a great venue if the Cougars want in the bowl business. BBVA would be great as long as it has out of state teams. An AAC vs CUSA of UTEP and Houston at BBVA would have a great secondary market.

As for who is actually known to be working on a bowl, there are only two. Little Rock and Los Angeles and the LA group was wanting in the December 24-26 window initially. They were talking Coliseum but 27k seat StubHub seems more realistic.

Charleston has indicated they want one but they have to get the NCAA satisfied on the flag thing.
Chattanooga has made inquiries but don't have an active group.

I would think that San Marcos would be very interested in doing something simply because the reality of the Sunbelt Bowl situation dictates that the Bobcats will only get a bowl by winning the conference. New Orleans would take a 6-6 ULL rather than a 10-2 second place Texas State. Every Sunbelt Bowl has a built in primary school. Its clearly an issue for the conference and Texas State could actually help themselves and the conference at the same time.

I've suggested this before. What might make the game more manageable is partnering with San Antonio and Austin. House one team in Austin and one in San Antonio. Maybe have a few joint events in San Marcos. That might help drive additional interest, sell more tickets, expand the corporate donation pool, and lighten the load on a small town like San Marcos.

Frankly, I wish Houston would host a bowl game in TDECU. It would be nice way for the stadium to generate some extra publicity and cash flow for the athletic department. The problem is the AAC has 7 to 8 bowl commitments a year though the end of this bowl cycle. I think the AAC is tapped out at this point. Any extra bowl would have to involve the SB, CUSA, or MAC.