(09-29-2015 10:34 AM)solohawks Wrote:  Your main argument in that dialogue was players might get hurt.

Total costs.


So once and for all, the SB will hold a CCG only for one or both of the following reasons:

1) for the appearance that it hasn't fallen behind the MW, AAC, CUSA and MAC

2) for the appearance that it's giving its champion an "equal footing" with the other G5 champions, in the competition for the CFP bowl slot



That's it. Otherwise, the overall value proposition isn't compelling.

(09-29-2015 09:03 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(09-29-2015 01:03 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-28-2015 10:46 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(09-25-2015 05:53 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(09-25-2015 05:49 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Some salesman: "How about some positive, national exposure for your university??"

Every university president ever: "How much does it cost?"

Salesman: just an extra football game. No major financial cost to you. In fact youll probably make a little money from the gate.

Every university president ever: "[loud laughter] That's a good one! If I had a nickel for every time someone claimed that it wasn't going to cost us anything ... Well anyway, look, there are always costs. Sometimes costs aren't as easy to identify or quantify, but they're always there. There are travel costs, logistics costs, additional physical and mental wear of another game, a star player could be lost to injury, etc."

So let me get this straight---your contention is that a championship game---held in the home stadium of the top team in the conference---is a money loser? I'll just say this---if you cant make money on a home game for all the marbles when your team is having the best season in the entire conference---then you probably need to drop your football program.

A home stadium CCG is not going to lose money. Now, a neutral game site is a completely different animal. I could see that being a money loser. But there is simply no way in hell a home game CCG is going to lose money. Your expenses are essentially just the travel cost for the #2 team. Don't you have that same cost for every home game? The Sunbelt seems to be able to generate a profit on the rest of their regular season games---Why on earth would a CCG be suddenly different---especially when a CCG ticket usually costs more than a regular season ticket.

While I don't agree that CCG should be allowed to be hosted at a home stadium, that argument is for a different thread.

MW, CUSA and AAC do it, as lame as it is and as unequivalent to a true CCG (neutral site) as it is.


That said, this has already been discussed. Probably multiple times. If Georgia Southern got to host ULL at Paulson, and got to keep all the money from that game, then of course GS would be doing backflips for the CCG.

But of course that's not how it works. I think you know better, too.

Irrelevant. Whether the PROFIT is kept by the hosting team or split among the league (PROFIT being the money left over after all expenses have been paid)--the facts remain the same. By definition, splitting PROFIT indicates the game itself is not a money loser. By the way, we are assuming here that the game generates no more money than a typical home SB game---which is profitable. If you hold the thing on a Friday night---guess what? You probably have a nice little TV property as well. If I recall correctly, CUSA got 4 million for their CCG from ESPN.

(09-29-2015 12:49 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-29-2015 09:03 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(09-29-2015 01:03 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-28-2015 10:46 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(09-25-2015 05:53 PM)solohawks Wrote:  Salesman: just an extra football game. No major financial cost to you. In fact youll probably make a little money from the gate.

Every university president ever: "[loud laughter] That's a good one! If I had a nickel for every time someone claimed that it wasn't going to cost us anything ... Well anyway, look, there are always costs. Sometimes costs aren't as easy to identify or quantify, but they're always there. There are travel costs, logistics costs, additional physical and mental wear of another game, a star player could be lost to injury, etc."

So let me get this straight---your contention is that a championship game---held in the home stadium of the top team in the conference---is a money loser? I'll just say this---if you cant make money on a home game for all the marbles when your team is having the best season in the entire conference---then you probably need to drop your football program.

A home stadium CCG is not going to lose money. Now, a neutral game site is a completely different animal. I could see that being a money loser. But there is simply no way in hell a home game CCG is going to lose money. Your expenses are essentially just the travel cost for the #2 team. Don't you have that same cost for every home game? The Sunbelt seems to be able to generate a profit on the rest of their regular season games---Why on earth would a CCG be suddenly different---especially when a CCG ticket usually costs more than a regular season ticket.

While I don't agree that CCG should be allowed to be hosted at a home stadium, that argument is for a different thread.

MW, CUSA and AAC do it, as lame as it is and as unequivalent to a true CCG (neutral site) as it is.


That said, this has already been discussed. Probably multiple times. If Georgia Southern got to host ULL at Paulson, and got to keep all the money from that game, then of course GS would be doing backflips for the CCG.

But of course that's not how it works. I think you know better, too.

Irrelevant. Whether the PROFIT is kept by the hosting team or split among the league (PROFIT being the money left over after all expenses have been paid)--the facts remain the same. By definition, splitting PROFIT indicates the game itself is not a money loser. By the way, we are assuming here that the game generates no more money than a typical home SB game---which is profitable. If you hold the thing on a Friday night---guess what? You probably have a nice little TV property as well. If I recall correctly, CUSA got 4 million for their CCG from ESPN.

And SB would be distributing maybe an extra $0.02 per school, after figuring total income (tickets, extra media deal money, etc.) minus total financial costs.

Like I said, the total value proposition is not compelling. It's childishly naive to think the only thing that matters is if having the game would result in any positive amount of money going to each SB school.

So fox really got one over on espn when they gave espn the cusa championship game as settlement for breach of contract by cusa. Hope the mouse doesnt find that out or he will be angry

(09-29-2015 05:46 PM)solohawks Wrote:  So fox really got one over on espn when they gave espn the cusa championship game as settlement for breach of contract by cusa. Hope the mouse doesnt find that out or he will be angry

Red herring

If you say so

To me it's a giant sports corporation showing value in a g5 non neutral site championship game as if it was worthwhile or something crazy like that. Good thing the sunbelt is too smart too fall for that

(09-29-2015 06:15 PM)solohawks Wrote:  If you say so

To me it's a giant sports corporation showing value in a g5 non neutral site championship game as if it was worthwhile or something crazy like that. Good thing the sunbelt is too smart too fall for that

lol.

If ESPN is willing to give the SBC an extra $1 Million, then go for it. If not, forget it. The conference might be able to get by with a little less than $1 Million, but it would have to enough to accommodate such scenarios as Idaho at Georgia Southern or Coastal Carolina at New Mexico State - moving the team's equipment becomes the expensive part. Ditching Idaho and NMSU would help, but then the conference likely needs two more teams again.

(09-29-2015 08:01 PM)chargeradio Wrote:  If ESPN is willing to give the SBC an extra $1 Million, then go for it. If not, forget it.

This is one reason for the SBC to be cagey about whether they want a CCG ... if they are committed to having one and then ask what they can get for it, they are less likely to get fair value.

(09-29-2015 06:15 PM)solohawks Wrote:  If you say so

To me it's a giant sports corporation showing value in a g5 non neutral site championship game as if it was worthwhile or something crazy like that. Good thing the sunbelt is too smart too fall for that

It's a red herring because the Sun Belt is not the CUSA. You know this.

Also, I wonder if you've addressed post #228, yet? *crickets*

(09-30-2015 04:16 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(09-29-2015 08:01 PM)chargeradio Wrote:  If ESPN is willing to give the SBC an extra $1 Million, then go for it. If not, forget it.

This is one reason for the SBC to be cagey about whether they want a CCG ... if they are committed to having one and then ask what they can get for it, they are less likely to get fair value.

The correct answer for why they might desire a CCG was given in post #221.

(09-30-2015 03:57 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(09-30-2015 04:16 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(09-29-2015 08:01 PM)chargeradio Wrote:  If ESPN is willing to give the SBC an extra $1 Million, then go for it. If not, forget it.

This is one reason for the SBC to be cagey about whether they want a CCG ... if they are committed to having one and then ask what they can get for it, they are less likely to get fair value.

The correct answer for why they might desire a CCG was given in post #221.

Non sequitur ... the reasons why a conference would be cagey about wanting a CCG and the reasons why a conference would want a CCG do not have a necessary relationship.

As far as the notion that the case for a Go5 CCG hinges on offering a hefty financial profit as opposed to the kind of clear exposure benefits that Go5 schools with CCG's receive ... FBS football is not a money making exercise in the Go5 conferences, its a marketing expense. A CCG that breaks even and brings in more viewers than ever turn in to a regular season game is a strong net win.

(10-01-2015 05:00 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(09-30-2015 03:57 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(09-30-2015 04:16 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(09-29-2015 08:01 PM)chargeradio Wrote:  If ESPN is willing to give the SBC an extra $1 Million, then go for it. If not, forget it.

This is one reason for the SBC to be cagey about whether they want a CCG ... if they are committed to having one and then ask what they can get for it, they are less likely to get fair value.

The correct answer for why they might desire a CCG was given in post #221.

Non sequitur ... the reasons why a conference would be cagey about wanting a CCG and the reasons why a conference would want a CCG do not have a necessary relationship.

As far as the notion that the case for a Go5 CCG hinges on offering a hefty financial profit as opposed to the kind of clear exposure benefits that Go5 schools with CCG's receive ... FBS football is not a money making exercise in the Go5 conferences, its a marketing expense. A CCG that breaks even and brings in more viewers than ever turn in to a regular season game is a strong net win.

There aren't clear exposure benefits. You have still yet to prove this, for the MAC. You only cited numbers showing that the CCG got higher ratings than some weekday games. That doesn't prove anything.

(10-01-2015 08:53 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(10-01-2015 05:00 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(09-30-2015 03:57 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(09-30-2015 04:16 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(09-29-2015 08:01 PM)chargeradio Wrote:  If ESPN is willing to give the SBC an extra $1 Million, then go for it. If not, forget it.

This is one reason for the SBC to be cagey about whether they want a CCG ... if they are committed to having one and then ask what they can get for it, they are less likely to get fair value.

The correct answer for why they might desire a CCG was given in post #221.

Non sequitur ... the reasons why a conference would be cagey about wanting a CCG and the reasons why a conference would want a CCG do not have a necessary relationship.

As far as the notion that the case for a Go5 CCG hinges on offering a hefty financial profit as opposed to the kind of clear exposure benefits that Go5 schools with CCG's receive ... FBS football is not a money making exercise in the Go5 conferences, its a marketing expense. A CCG that breaks even and brings in more viewers than ever turn in to a regular season game is a strong net win.

There aren't clear exposure benefits. You have still yet to prove this, for the MAC. You only cited numbers showing that the CCG got higher ratings than some weekday games. That doesn't prove anything.

Remember folks Higher ratings and more people watching than normal do not equal greater exposure.