(05-06-2016 12:25 PM)EigenEagle Wrote:  

(05-05-2016 04:12 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

Again, where are you getting that from, WKUG? It looks just like some excel sheet someone just screen-caputred.

On these rankings ULL, Texas State, and a couple of FCS teams appear before any CUSA teams.

USA Toady and they get the numbers from your school and mine

http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances

(05-06-2016 11:47 AM)airtroop Wrote:  You're forgetting the bowl payouts per team. The SBC finished ahead of CUSA last season. You also need to count the basketball units - we've had a team in the round of 32 two years in a row now...that's MILLIONS of bucks for the conference. PS: I was rooting for the MUTS to go to the Sweet 16 this year too.

The reason the Belt is in such a sweet spot for the near future is obviously due to the 10-team business model.

no the sbc was ranked behind cusa last year in football payout and just for the record on those ncaa units...

UAB and MUTS won a first round game the last two years. Same as SBC

(05-06-2016 01:02 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(05-06-2016 11:47 AM)airtroop Wrote:  You're forgetting the bowl payouts per team. The SBC finished ahead of CUSA last season. You also need to count the basketball units - we've had a team in the round of 32 two years in a row now...that's MILLIONS of bucks for the conference. PS: I was rooting for the MUTS to go to the Sweet 16 this year too.

The reason the Belt is in such a sweet spot for the near future is obviously due to the 10-team business model.

no the sbc was ranked behind cusa last year in football payout and just for the record on those ncaa units...

UAB and MUTS won a first round game the last two years. Same as SBC

that's MILLIONS of bucks for the conference.

(05-06-2016 12:59 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  USA Toady and they get the numbers from your school and mine

http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances

There's no information in that table about licensing revenues.

(05-06-2016 01:31 PM)EigenEagle Wrote:  

(05-06-2016 12:59 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  USA Toady and they get the numbers from your school and mine

http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances

There's no information in that table about licensing revenues.

So you click on a school name in the database and you then see the breakdown with "rights/licensing" being one of the columns.

(05-06-2016 12:47 PM)FIU4Ever Wrote:  

(05-06-2016 11:47 AM)airtroop Wrote:  You're forgetting the bowl payouts per team. The SBC finished ahead of CUSA last season. You also need to count the basketball units - we've had a team in the round of 32 two years in a row now...that's MILLIONS of bucks for the conference. PS: I was rooting for the MUTS to go to the Sweet 16 this year too.

The reason the Belt is in such a sweet spot for the near future is obviously due to the 10-team business model.

It is a discussion about TV dollars, are they wrong about the belt's TV revenue?

Naw, they're right in that context.

(05-06-2016 01:02 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(05-06-2016 11:47 AM)airtroop Wrote:  You're forgetting the bowl payouts per team. The SBC finished ahead of CUSA last season. You also need to count the basketball units - we've had a team in the round of 32 two years in a row now...that's MILLIONS of bucks for the conference. PS: I was rooting for the MUTS to go to the Sweet 16 this year too.

The reason the Belt is in such a sweet spot for the near future is obviously due to the 10-team business model.

no the sbc was ranked behind cusa last year in football payout and just for the record on those ncaa units...

UAB and MUTS won a first round game the last two years. Same as SBC

I forgot about UAB. The main point still remains - the 10-school business model pays out more per school in the SBC counting ALL revenues. You're also right about CFP dollars but the SBC cleared more in bowl dollars than CUSA last year too - again, divided by 10 versus 14.

You have 14 teams vs our 10 (full members). You should expect and DEMAND (of your commish) to be bringing in more dollars than the Belt in ALL categories, seeing as the fact is the CUSA is 46% larger in membership (and opportunities) than the Belt. Similarly, CUSA has an easier path to having a top 25 representative every year than the SBC does for that exact same reason. Your conference represents around 11% of the entire body of FBS schools.

(05-06-2016 03:05 PM)airtroop Wrote:  

(05-06-2016 01:02 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(05-06-2016 11:47 AM)airtroop Wrote:  You're forgetting the bowl payouts per team. The SBC finished ahead of CUSA last season. You also need to count the basketball units - we've had a team in the round of 32 two years in a row now...that's MILLIONS of bucks for the conference. PS: I was rooting for the MUTS to go to the Sweet 16 this year too.

The reason the Belt is in such a sweet spot for the near future is obviously due to the 10-team business model.

no the sbc was ranked behind cusa last year in football payout and just for the record on those ncaa units...

UAB and MUTS won a first round game the last two years. Same as SBC

I forgot about UAB. The main point still remains - the 10-school business model pays out more per school in the SBC counting ALL revenues. You're also right about CFP dollars but the SBC cleared more in bowl dollars than CUSA last year too - again, divided by 10 versus 14.

You have 14 teams vs our 10 (full members). You should expect and DEMAND (of your commish) to be bringing in more dollars than the Belt in ALL categories, seeing as the fact is the CUSA is 46% larger in membership (and opportunities) than the Belt. Similarly, CUSA has an easier path to having a top 25 representative every year than the SBC does for that exact same reason. Your conference represents around 11% of the entire body of FBS schools.

Well if it drops to $450,000 each school that's still 3.5x more than $100,000. And there is nothing showing that espn is giving the SBC anything more. If you read something different give me a link? Yes I realize you THINK espn will value the SBC's content but at this point...it's your though.

Now lets say espn got part of CUSA as some have said. That's CONTENT that espn did not have before. So if espn has this new content what makes you think they will put a 3.5x value on the SBC?

When MT moved up to FBS (think it was 1999) I enjoyed our time in the Sun Belt; but seriously our TV Exposure, Our Income and Bowl Opportunities expanded a whole bunch after the CUSA move. I really don't care what our little brothers in the new Sun Belt say we improved our position. I've never spoken to an MT alum or sidewalk fan that feels any differently. GO CUSA: pbjtime: Pretty sure the same has occurred for Western, and several other ex-sunbelters.

(05-06-2016 03:57 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(05-06-2016 03:05 PM)airtroop Wrote:  

(05-06-2016 01:02 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(05-06-2016 11:47 AM)airtroop Wrote:  You're forgetting the bowl payouts per team. The SBC finished ahead of CUSA last season. You also need to count the basketball units - we've had a team in the round of 32 two years in a row now...that's MILLIONS of bucks for the conference. PS: I was rooting for the MUTS to go to the Sweet 16 this year too.

The reason the Belt is in such a sweet spot for the near future is obviously due to the 10-team business model.

no the sbc was ranked behind cusa last year in football payout and just for the record on those ncaa units...

UAB and MUTS won a first round game the last two years. Same as SBC

I forgot about UAB. The main point still remains - the 10-school business model pays out more per school in the SBC counting ALL revenues. You're also right about CFP dollars but the SBC cleared more in bowl dollars than CUSA last year too - again, divided by 10 versus 14.

You have 14 teams vs our 10 (full members). You should expect and DEMAND (of your commish) to be bringing in more dollars than the Belt in ALL categories, seeing as the fact is the CUSA is 46% larger in membership (and opportunities) than the Belt. Similarly, CUSA has an easier path to having a top 25 representative every year than the SBC does for that exact same reason. Your conference represents around 11% of the entire body of FBS schools.

Well if it drops to $450,000 each school that's still 3.5x more than $100,000. And there is nothing showing that espn is giving the SBC anything more. If you read something different give me a link? Yes I realize you THINK espn will value the SBC's content but at this point...it's your though.

Now lets say espn got part of CUSA as some have said. That's CONTENT that espn did not have before. So if espn has this new content what makes you think they will put a 3.5x value on the SBC?

Hi. I'm not convinced ESPN will ante up any higher, although I'd expect they will to some degree. I can see the Belt opening talks with other media outlets like CUSA did for additional sources of revenue vs the exclusive ESPN deal we're stuck in right now. I fully expect the SBC to increase the media payout per school this time around and if not, Karl Benson needs to GO.

(05-04-2016 04:47 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  So basically the conference will get less money with more exposure compared to more money with less exposure under the current deal. Now it's up to the current schools to make the best of it. You'll make less but you can sell your program to recruits by being on TV.

Before any AAC, MAC and SBC fans come here to celebrate and lecture us how "better off" they are, remember, this is not good for the rest of the G5 in future TV negotiations. There's already a precedent for this since the last realignment of 2011-14. The AAC went first when they got relegated to the kids table and lost their TV deal and bowls they had when they were called the Big East, then the MWC lost its tv network and its 3 most important football schools, got a so so deal with Boise State getting the lion's share, the MAC got stuck with ESPN making peanuts for a long term deal, now it's C-USA's turn to take a cut in TV money after the defectors left and the Sun Belt is well the Sun Belt.

Unless your school is in a P5 conference, this is not good for any of the G5.

- The AAC is made up of 3 former Big East teams and a bunch of CUSA teams, it would be unreasonable to assume they would keep the same deal with all new teams.

- The MAC's old deal was $1.4M/yr, the new one is $10M/yr. I don't think most people see the MAC as getting "stuck making peanuts", especially in comparison to the rumored market rates, rather I think most would see the MAC as getting lucky before the bottom fell out.

(05-07-2016 12:53 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  

(05-04-2016 04:47 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  So basically the conference will get less money with more exposure compared to more money with less exposure under the current deal. Now it's up to the current schools to make the best of it. You'll make less but you can sell your program to recruits by being on TV.

Before any AAC, MAC and SBC fans come here to celebrate and lecture us how "better off" they are, remember, this is not good for the rest of the G5 in future TV negotiations. There's already a precedent for this since the last realignment of 2011-14. The AAC went first when they got relegated to the kids table and lost their TV deal and bowls they had when they were called the Big East, then the MWC lost its tv network and its 3 most important football schools, got a so so deal with Boise State getting the lion's share, the MAC got stuck with ESPN making peanuts for a long term deal, now it's C-USA's turn to take a cut in TV money after the defectors left and the Sun Belt is well the Sun Belt.

Unless your school is in a P5 conference, this is not good for any of the G5.

- The AAC is made up of 3 former Big East teams and a bunch of CUSA teams, it would be unreasonable to assume they would keep the same deal with all new teams.

- The MAC's old deal was $1.4M/yr, the new one is $10M/yr. I don't think most people see the MAC as getting "stuck making peanuts", especially in comparison to the rumored market rates, rather I think most would see the MAC as getting lucky before the bottom fell out.

The MAC was smart and lucky. Paid off for them.

(05-07-2016 12:56 PM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  

(05-07-2016 12:53 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  

(05-04-2016 04:47 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  So basically the conference will get less money with more exposure compared to more money with less exposure under the current deal. Now it's up to the current schools to make the best of it. You'll make less but you can sell your program to recruits by being on TV.

Before any AAC, MAC and SBC fans come here to celebrate and lecture us how "better off" they are, remember, this is not good for the rest of the G5 in future TV negotiations. There's already a precedent for this since the last realignment of 2011-14. The AAC went first when they got relegated to the kids table and lost their TV deal and bowls they had when they were called the Big East, then the MWC lost its tv network and its 3 most important football schools, got a so so deal with Boise State getting the lion's share, the MAC got stuck with ESPN making peanuts for a long term deal, now it's C-USA's turn to take a cut in TV money after the defectors left and the Sun Belt is well the Sun Belt.

Unless your school is in a P5 conference, this is not good for any of the G5.

- The AAC is made up of 3 former Big East teams and a bunch of CUSA teams, it would be unreasonable to assume they would keep the same deal with all new teams.

- The MAC's old deal was $1.4M/yr, the new one is $10M/yr. I don't think most people see the MAC as getting "stuck making peanuts", especially in comparison to the rumored market rates, rather I think most would see the MAC as getting lucky before the bottom fell out.

The MAC was smart and lucky. Paid off for them.

Much luckier than smart...

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk