Marshall, Western Kentucky, Southern Mississippi, UTEP and Rice are the main draw for viewers. UTSA is growing. C-USA added the wrong schools. North Texas, Charlotte, FAU, FIU the worst performers.
UAB, Middle Tennessee State, Old Dominion, La. Tech are the middle of the road that draws viewers. James Madison and Delaware get better tv draw than Charlotte and North Texas.

(05-05-2016 12:10 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  James Madison and Delaware get better tv draw than Charlotte and North Texas.

Can you support that opinion with actual ratings?

(05-05-2016 10:11 AM)Maize Wrote:  

(05-05-2016 09:58 AM)bullet Wrote:  Demonstrates that there are still 3 levels in FBS-P5, Big G5 (AAC, MWC) and Little G5 (CUSA, MAC, SB). CUSA has joined the MAC and BW/SB in the bottom tier. Which is logical since it is mostly former Sun Belt members, 5 directly from the Sun Belt and 4 indirectly. Only UTEP, UTSA, Rice, USM and Marshall were never Sun Belt members.

I break it down even more in the FBS....Mega 2-(B1G/SEC), P5-(Pac 12, ACC & Big XII)...G2-(MWC & American) and the Little 3-(C-USA, MAC & Sunbelt)

If the above #s are correct, there also is a big difference from Mac to CUSA and belt

(05-05-2016 12:23 PM)goodknightfl Wrote:  

(05-05-2016 10:11 AM)Maize Wrote:  

(05-05-2016 09:58 AM)bullet Wrote:  Demonstrates that there are still 3 levels in FBS-P5, Big G5 (AAC, MWC) and Little G5 (CUSA, MAC, SB). CUSA has joined the MAC and BW/SB in the bottom tier. Which is logical since it is mostly former Sun Belt members, 5 directly from the Sun Belt and 4 indirectly. Only UTEP, UTSA, Rice, USM and Marshall were never Sun Belt members.

I break it down even more in the FBS....Mega 2-(B1G/SEC), P5-(Pac 12, ACC & Big XII)...G2-(MWC & American) and the Little 3-(C-USA, MAC & Sunbelt)

If the above #s are correct, there also is a big difference from Mac to CUSA and belt

MAC commissioner looking like Warren Buffet right now.

(05-05-2016 09:05 AM)billybobby777 Wrote:  Lesson:
Never add start up programs to a conference from big markets and expect to add money. It's a sure fire way to lose a lot of money.
Cheers!

dem coogs doh dat Houston market doh!

wrap it up or lose it!!!!

the Sunbelt would be better off staying with 10 teams, playing fewer conference games (7 just like the Big 12 should do) having a CCG if they want one and then with 5 OOC games they can still play a FULL money game (SEC, ACC, Big 12, Big 10) perhaps a "small money game" and then still try and have 6 home games with a buy on D1-AA game

D1-AA teams are available with the Big 10 and the like playing less to none of those games in the future and perhaps the "small money game" could be a home and home with a MWC or AAC team

it is back to the point where Sunbelt and CUSA teams can male more money with a pay day game and with a decent home schedule that sells tickets Vs TV

hell they will make possibly 10X their TV money with a single payday game at this point

(05-05-2016 11:44 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  Actually for UNT, if was a really good move. They get into a conference with quite a few western and Texas schools they didn't have in the Sunbelt.

unfortunately being in a conference with a lot of teams that all offer basically the same thing does not work out well for those teams or those conferences especially when a number of those programs all fall into decline and recruits just choose to avoid all of them and or the whole conference

this is why "tight geographic conferences" generally never work because programs end up in the same division and beat each other down and you either get programs that get on top and stay on top at the expense of others or you get to where all those programs wear each other down and recruits simply abandon those teams and eventually the conference in general

(05-05-2016 11:06 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  It's a crime that CUSA gets $12M a year guaranteed from the college playoff. It sucks that the best G5 conference makes $23M from the playoff while the worst G5 conference makes $13M.

The American and MWC would be in much better shape if 25% of the G5 playoff money split evenly among the conferences and 75% was available to distribute on a performance basis instead of the other way around.

FWIW, recent quotes by Benson appear to confirm that a move has been made to reduce the maximum CFP guaranteed money to each conference from 12 million to 10 million. This resulted in an extra 10 million dollars flowing to the pool of CFP that the G5 distributes based on performance (which went from about 19 million to around 29 million--assuming the G5 CFP split is the reported $85 million).

(05-05-2016 11:42 AM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(05-05-2016 11:23 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(05-05-2016 11:10 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  CUSA now has a problem in that with its tiny deal it cannot raid the SBC anymore for schools.

That is why I could see them taking in New Mexico State should they get raided.

If SBC schools are motivated exclusively by tv deal money.

Some schools may be motivated by other factors...like UNT was...or some schools may just have a dummy that chooses randomly.

I still think UNT, FIU, and FAU going to CUSA was a very foolish decision. While FIU was in the Sun Belt they were on ESPN getting national attention and going to bowl games. Now they are in a situation to where they can't be successful in basketball, they cant be successful in football, and the only team they really have a connection to is FAU.

UNT got to join Rice, UTSA, and UTEP (and thought they were getting Tulsa as well). They came out fine. Now the flip side of that is that when Texas State and UTSA were about to join the WAC both were calling the Sun Belt and had the votes to join but no one would go forward unless UNT made the motion to invite one or both, UNT didn't so had they done so things might have turned differently.

(05-05-2016 12:05 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(05-05-2016 12:00 PM)chess Wrote:  The National Hockey League is going to stream games using the MLB streaming technology. It seems like the right time to take a gamble. $150K is not going to make a difference to an athletic department.

While true, the flipside to your suggestion is it would cost them money to produce their games and market them, so while $150k isn't a lot, it probably beats the hell out of spending $500k per team (or more) with no guarantee of making any money back.

Does it? How much does it really cost to produce a game if your using your own radio guy for play by play, the cameras and video equipment are already on site and built-in, and the production booth is owned by the school and hardwired to the stadium and uplink. My guess is that with such a set up, the costs is far less than what it requires for a network to roll in a mobile crew to do the same thing. Now, the production value may not be like the NFL---but its probably acceptable to fans (probably even better, since the crew will talk about the game at hand rather than spending half the game selling the upcoming Bama-LSU matchup).

(05-05-2016 12:16 PM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  

(05-05-2016 12:10 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  James Madison and Delaware get better tv draw than Charlotte and North Texas.

Can you support that opinion with actual ratings?

I see CAA and CAAF up in my parts all the time on a second-tier cable package. I can't remember the last time I've seen CUSA. I'm in the northeast, though, within the footprint of CAA/CAAF and not CUSA. Still, even before CAA had a deal, I can't remember how often I saw CUSA. ESPN would show a Memphis basketball game here and there, but football? Forget it.

Mind you, CAA and CAAF are under some kind of Comcast/NBC-like deal, but if you have to pay for the top cable package to access the stations that would cover CUSA regularly, I think your numbers follow thereafter.

This isn't against CUSA, but more about how conferences go into these negotiations, thinking they need to be seen on certain stations or brands...when you have to pay a mint to be seen, and you're not really the sort of institution that pumps out people who can toss that money at premium cable packages...something's been missed. Not compatible or congruent with the enrollment profile...

(05-05-2016 02:31 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-05-2016 12:05 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(05-05-2016 12:00 PM)chess Wrote:  The National Hockey League is going to stream games using the MLB streaming technology. It seems like the right time to take a gamble. $150K is not going to make a difference to an athletic department.

While true, the flipside to your suggestion is it would cost them money to produce their games and market them, so while $150k isn't a lot, it probably beats the hell out of spending $500k per team (or more) with no guarantee of making any money back.

Does it? How much does it really cost to produce a game if your using your own radio guy for play by play, the cameras and video equipment are already on site and built-in, and the production booth is owned by the school and hardwired to the stadium and uplink. My guess is that with such a set up, the costs is far less than what it requires for a network to roll in a mobile crew to do the same thing. Now, the production value may not be like the NFL---but its probably acceptable to fans (probably even better, since the crew will talk about the game at hand rather than spending half the game selling the upcoming Bama-LSU matchup).

Admittedly I am just using broad estimates. The price can vary based on production value. But the cost of creating and building studios that can handle broadcast quality, satellite time, employees, etc, for 6-7 football games and 15 or so men's basketball games, per team, would probably be pretty significant.

Now I think a better option might be a deal with a syndication company like Raycom, who might pay the cost, get them a little cash, but get games on regular TV in their markets. To help fill the void from the SEC properties no longer in syndication, the Big East properties no longer in syndication, and the likely reduction of ACC properties as the ACC might have to backfill some ESPN slots the Big Ten vacated. Kind of like old being new.
That said, ESPN 3 streaming is probably better than uploading to youtube.

I wonder if this would cause Marshall to reach out to the MAC to see if they would be interested in adding them back?

(05-05-2016 04:21 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  I wonder if this would cause Marshall to reach out to the MAC to see if they would be interested in adding them back?

Does Marshall want to play on Tuesdays and Wednesdays?

(05-05-2016 04:24 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-05-2016 04:21 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  I wonder if this would cause Marshall to reach out to the MAC to see if they would be interested in adding them back?

Does Marshall want to play on Tuesdays and Wednesdays?

Good point. BUT, if they could get mostly Saturday games, going back to the MAC to play Ohio schools is way better than this current CUSA. Wow, pretty soon CUSA will be going the way of the WAC.
Cheers!

(05-05-2016 12:03 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(05-05-2016 11:42 AM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(05-05-2016 11:23 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(05-05-2016 11:10 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  CUSA now has a problem in that with its tiny deal it cannot raid the SBC anymore for schools.

That is why I could see them taking in New Mexico State should they get raided.

If SBC schools are motivated exclusively by tv deal money.

Some schools may be motivated by other factors...like UNT was...or some schools may just have a dummy that chooses randomly.

I still think UNT, FIU, and FAU going to CUSA was a very foolish decision. While FIU was in the Sun Belt they were on ESPN getting national attention and going to bowl games. Now they are in a situation to where they can't be successful in basketball, they cant be successful in football, and the only team they really have a connection to is FAU.

But that is a sun Belt that by and large does not exist anymore. A good chunk of the teams they were playing against are with them in CUSA now. Aside from Arkansas State, the Sunbelt is mostly FCS call ups and the Louisiana schools. I don't see how staying was an option for any team with a choice, that wasn't in the southwest.

Sort of:

1. I have yet to see the disadvantage to playing in a conference with FCS Move ups. There's a negative connotation attached with fans that I've yet to see. 5 years ago I would have gladly traded FAU and FIU out for App and Georgia Southern. Frankly, the latter two are just better all around athletic programs at this point.

Now, I don't fault the decisions FAU, FIU, UNT, MTSU, and WKU made. Monetarily, it was an opportunity to increase their revenue, and for UNT it provided an opportunity to play games against Texas teams. It offered MTSU and WKU the opportunity tow ork with Marshall, UAB, and Southern Miss. I feel the mistake comes on CUSA's end. They chose to make an end run on markets, trying desparately to replace a TV contract they had no hope of saving. UNT may be in the Dallas Market, but its about option 10 within the Dallas Market for College Football...by that point the market is so saturated that few are watching.

In a bubble, had CUSA picked up MTSU, WKU, Tech, and ODU (Good additions) and then instead of chasing markets, had picked up the top remaining SBC programs in ULL and Arkansas State, and then turned and picked up App and Georgia Southern, they probably turn out with the same revenue TV wise they are getting now, but with a far more competitive league that's a lot closer to catching up with the AAC/MWC than they are now.

However, realignment doesn't work in a bubble. They made the decisions based off the best information they had available, it just didn't work out like it could have.

I do think now they are going to find it harder to pull the top SBC teams away if Realignment was to start again. Revenue difference is now minimal, and the SBC has far fewer teams to have to work against at the league level.

(05-05-2016 12:16 PM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  

(05-05-2016 12:10 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  James Madison and Delaware get better tv draw than Charlotte and North Texas.

Can you support that opinion with actual ratings?

Facts are foreign to David. You'll be waiting for a while.

(05-05-2016 04:30 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(05-05-2016 04:24 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-05-2016 04:21 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  I wonder if this would cause Marshall to reach out to the MAC to see if they would be interested in adding them back?

Does Marshall want to play on Tuesdays and Wednesdays?

Good point. BUT, if they could get mostly Saturday games, going back to the MAC to play Ohio schools is way better than this current CUSA. Wow, pretty soon CUSA will be going the way of the WAC.
Cheers!

Unfortunately that's not how it works in the MAC. Toledo and NIU are the big ticket names there now and both schools basically get shafted to play most of ESPN's high profile MACtion games because of name recognition. Marshall being who they are, a high profile name, would get slotted right there with those two.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

(05-05-2016 04:45 PM)Stay Cool Wrote:  

(05-05-2016 04:30 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(05-05-2016 04:24 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-05-2016 04:21 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  I wonder if this would cause Marshall to reach out to the MAC to see if they would be interested in adding them back?

Does Marshall want to play on Tuesdays and Wednesdays?

Good point. BUT, if they could get mostly Saturday games, going back to the MAC to play Ohio schools is way better than this current CUSA. Wow, pretty soon CUSA will be going the way of the WAC.
Cheers!

Unfortunately that's not how it works in the MAC. Toledo and NIU are the big ticket names there now and both schools basically get shafted to play most of ESPN's high profile MACtion games because of name recognition. Marshall being who they are, a high profile name, would get slotted right there with those two.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

Yea, Marshall would get stuck playing Tuesday and Wednesday nights too. I'm sure they'd love that.

(05-05-2016 04:30 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(05-05-2016 04:24 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-05-2016 04:21 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  I wonder if this would cause Marshall to reach out to the MAC to see if they would be interested in adding them back?

Does Marshall want to play on Tuesdays and Wednesdays?

Good point. BUT, if they could get mostly Saturday games, going back to the MAC to play Ohio schools is way better than this current CUSA. Wow, pretty soon CUSA will be going the way of the WAC.
Cheers!

With Marshall, what's done is done at this point with their move to CUSA.

I don't even think the MAC would want Marshall back at this point.

The school the MAC should have on its A list is Temple. The AAC could be in trouble if there is a shakeup in the B12 w/ Texas leaving among other schools and several current AAC schools getting the call. Temple may be the odd man out and stuck in a conference without a TV deal.

When it comes to a G5, the MAC is about as good as it gets with TV deal, low travel costs and academic profile.

(05-05-2016 11:42 AM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(05-05-2016 11:23 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(05-05-2016 11:10 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  CUSA now has a problem in that with its tiny deal it cannot raid the SBC anymore for schools.

That is why I could see them taking in New Mexico State should they get raided.

If SBC schools are motivated exclusively by tv deal money.

Some schools may be motivated by other factors...like UNT was...or some schools may just have a dummy that chooses randomly.

I still think UNT, FIU, and FAU going to CUSA was a very foolish decision. While FIU was in the Sun Belt they were on ESPN getting national attention and going to bowl games. Now they are in a situation to where they can't be successful in basketball, they cant be successful in football, and the only team they really have a connection to is FAU.

I think it made sense for UNT. UTEP was in the conference, UTSA was being added, Rice was there, and Tulsa was still in the conference. It was a MUCH better geographic fit for them.