Everything is going to plan. The for profit broadcast rights and corporate sponsorship business model of college sports is doing what it does to every other industry - it will produce a small, aristocratic oligarchy and drive everyone else completely out of business via economics. That is the desired result of everyone currently pulling the strings.

Stupid fans and fanbases will applaud this reduction of choice and competition as what is "best for the game" like frogs on slow boil. At the end, when there are as few as 5-8 winners in the realignment wars, and all the other survivors are stuck playing the role of the Washington Generals in their respective conferences, all the $$ will feel very very empty and bitter as the 1-10 seasons and constant state of desperate churn erodes their fandom and fanbases.

No one stopped to ask why the NFL is so popular. It isn't because of the effects of Darwinism or unfettered capitalism on the economic side. It's all the factors that produce more economic and talent parity in the league and keep the competition levels even (the Darwinism is contained to gameday, where it belongs, and kept out of the economic side of the league). For some reason, that model is met with revulsion as a concept for college football - decades of evidence from the NFL are completely ignored.

(06-08-2016 08:30 AM)Artifice Wrote:  Everything is going to plan. The for profit broadcast rights and corporate sponsorship business model of college sports is doing what it does to every other industry - it will produce a small, aristocratic oligarchy and drive everyone else completely out of business via economics. That is the desired result of everyone currently pulling the strings.

Stupid fans and fanbases will applaud this reduction of choice and competition as what is "best for the game" like frogs on slow boil. At the end, when there are as few as 5-8 winners in the realignment wars, and all the other survivors are stuck playing the role of the Washington Generals in their respective conferences, all the $$ will feel very very empty and bitter as the 1-10 seasons and constant state of desperate churn erodes their fandom and fanbases.

No one stopped to ask why the NFL is so popular. It isn't because of the effects of Darwinism or unfettered capitalism on the economic side. It's all the factors that produce more economic and talent parity in the league and keep the competition levels even (the Darwinism is contained to gameday, where it belongs, and kept out of the economic side of the league). For some reason, that model is met with revulsion as a concept for college football - decades of evidence from the NFL are completely ignored.

(06-08-2016 01:50 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-08-2016 01:39 AM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  A lot of P5 schools use charter flights to transport their football teams to road games. Hawaii flies commercial. So it wouldn't surprise me if quite a few P5 schools have larger travel budgets, despite the fact that the Warriors travel many, many more miles.

But for the G5, I'd expect Hawaii's travel expense to be close to if not at the top, as Wedge surmises.

I just posted an article that says Houston, UNT, UTSA and UTEP had combined travel costs of 11 million in 2015 (an average travel cost of about 2.8 million each). And yes, I would think Hawaii would be near the top of G5 travel budgets. What I'm saying is G5s playing in half-continent conferences don't have travel budgets of 1 million. They are much higher than that. The MAC is the only G5 that might have it down that low. The vast majority of those 2.8 million in costs for North Texas or Houston is from the east coast trips--not the bus trips to San Antonio or Louisiana.

Let's also remember we don't know how the schools are allocating expenses.

Here is a real world example. UTEP plays at FAU. The fast answer is that going to FAU vs Arkansas State (the probable northern if not eastern outlier in a reformed league) isn't much different, the nominal cost of the charter doesn't change much flying another hour or so.

But football teams need helmets, uniforms, pads, cleats, etc.

Most teams truck that gear. (search Boise State cow to see where Boise trucked their gear to Southern Miss).

UTEP to FAU is 27 hours of driving. That means a minimum of two CDL holders in the cab (max 11 hours driving with 10 hours required rest). Assuming fuel stops and meals maybe do it in 30 hours. Assume a noon eastern kickoff and UTEP does a walkthrough at 7pm eastern on Friday. So gear has to be FAU's stadium no later than 5pm on Friday. That means the gear has to leave El Paso at no later than 11 am on Thursday if you are willing to cut it close.

Unless UTEP has two CDL holders on staff and pays them salary, they have to contract a team and that's going to run you more cents per mile.

To outlier AState 15.5 driving hours. Gear leaves El Paso 12 hours later than going to Boca. But still need two drivers.

If you replace the FAU trip with Texas State, just over 8 hours and one driver.

The shorter the trips get, the easier the logistics get. The less time administrative staff spends on logistics.

If I'm an administrator I probably don't count team meals as travel because I have to pay for meals no matter what but travel time matters as well. If the team has to leave before lunch on Friday vs. after lunch that's not a budget buster but it starts adding up across 16 or 19 sports.

ark,

RE: food. There is a new rule -- although I'm not sure if it's limited to P5, FBS, or all of DI -- that says athletic departments can now provide/gift unlimited amounts of food to their athletes. The rule change was in response to some unpopular reports a couple years ago of former star athletes saying they went hungry while on "full" scholarship.

So, at least for P5 athletic depts, probably some G5 too, I'm sure they are now having a completely separate budget for all the food they're buying for athletes. Football teams that get all meals catered on the road. Some schools even have whole dining halls/nutrition centers that are exclusively for athletes.

(06-07-2016 09:49 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-07-2016 06:38 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  If you lose $500K in media income but cut expenses by a $1 million

None of these schools can cut $1 million out of their annual athletics travel budget by shuffling the decks of these conferences. Each is probably spending a total of $1 million/year or so on athletics travel/meals/lodging -- you can't cut that down to zero.

Hawai'i has the highest athletics travel costs of any G5 school (by far, I'm sure), and even their annual travel/meals/lodging budget is "only" $3.8 million, according to page 5 (and Table 3) of this: https://www.hawaii.edu/offices/bor/athle...Report.pdf

ODU's was about 3.6 million across all sports:

http://www.apa.virginia.gov/reports/ODUNCAA15.pdf

If Hawaii flies only commercial, I wonder what their averaged costs were for that $3.8million.

If you figure, $500 (?) per round-trip seat, $75 (?) per bed per night (assume two to a room), and $15 per meal per person ... I'd love to know what the total number of round-trip seats, bed-nights, and meal-persons were paid out for the FY.


And how do they handle the costs of the equipment travel? Operations budget or travel budget? For a sport like baseball/softball, you just need each player and coach to check one bag of equipment. But for football ... they're taking a U-haul worth of stuff in the plane.

(06-07-2016 06:38 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-07-2016 01:25 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  I will say this: I never bought into the idea of a geographical reshuffle of CUSA and Sun Belt — the logistics would be borderline impossible — but if these numbers hash out, then the difference between the two contracts are low enough that it becomes more feasible. I mean, if you're going to get peanuts, at least shorten the drive to the peanut store.

I agree. For these fantasy SB/CUSA realignment scenarios to work, the money and bowl access had to pretty much even out. It looks like that has occurred. So the conditions are now set up for two regional conferences (one west and one east) to form if enough schools begin to see it as a way to cut expenses enough to improve the finances. If you lose $500K in media income but cut expenses by a $1 million---you got your income back plus a little extra. If more regional conference create a few more drivable games--schools might even see higher ticket sales due to visiting fans. Not to mention, Fox SW might be back at the table if a conference has 12 schools in the Fox-SW footprint.

While a full realignment would be really nice, I think if FAU and FIU moved back to the Sunbelt, that will resolve a few issues. F_U's have more SB schools in the geographic area than CUSA. It would group into more regional divisions.

CUSA:
West: UTEP, NT, UTSA, Rice, LA Tech, S. Miss
East: Marshall, ODU, UNCC, MTSU, WKU, UAB

SB:
West: Tex. St, ULL, ULM, Ark St, Troy, USA
East: App St, GSU, Ga. So, CCU, FAU, FIU.

(06-08-2016 09:27 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(06-07-2016 06:38 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-07-2016 01:25 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  I will say this: I never bought into the idea of a geographical reshuffle of CUSA and Sun Belt — the logistics would be borderline impossible — but if these numbers hash out, then the difference between the two contracts are low enough that it becomes more feasible. I mean, if you're going to get peanuts, at least shorten the drive to the peanut store.

I agree. For these fantasy SB/CUSA realignment scenarios to work, the money and bowl access had to pretty much even out. It looks like that has occurred. So the conditions are now set up for two regional conferences (one west and one east) to form if enough schools begin to see it as a way to cut expenses enough to improve the finances. If you lose $500K in media income but cut expenses by a $1 million---you got your income back plus a little extra. If more regional conference create a few more drivable games--schools might even see higher ticket sales due to visiting fans. Not to mention, Fox SW might be back at the table if a conference has 12 schools in the Fox-SW footprint.

While a full realignment would be really nice, I think if FAU and FIU moved back to the Sunbelt, that will resolve a few issues. F_U's have more SB schools in the geographic area than CUSA. It would group into more regional divisions.

CUSA:
West: UTEP, NT, UTSA, Rice, LA Tech, S. Miss
East: Marshall, ODU, UNCC, MTSU, WKU, UAB

SB:
West: Tex. St, ULL, ULM, Ark St, Troy, USA
East: App St, GSU, Ga. So, CCU, FAU, FIU.

I doubt the SBC would go for that considering the CFP money would not go up to cover the 2 additional members plus other conf revenue would be split more ways. The SBC is the only FBS conference at the ideal membership number to fit the newest rules. The 10 members can have a champ game and the limit of 10 million per conf in CFP distribution plus the distribution of conf strength reward from CFP seems to be finite per conf.

That would make a TON of sense. Too bad F_U will never give up the "prestige" of the CUSA over the "lowly" Sun Belt. No more than any of the recent transfers from SB to CUSA.

(06-08-2016 09:46 AM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  

(06-08-2016 09:27 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(06-07-2016 06:38 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-07-2016 01:25 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  I will say this: I never bought into the idea of a geographical reshuffle of CUSA and Sun Belt — the logistics would be borderline impossible — but if these numbers hash out, then the difference between the two contracts are low enough that it becomes more feasible. I mean, if you're going to get peanuts, at least shorten the drive to the peanut store.

I agree. For these fantasy SB/CUSA realignment scenarios to work, the money and bowl access had to pretty much even out. It looks like that has occurred. So the conditions are now set up for two regional conferences (one west and one east) to form if enough schools begin to see it as a way to cut expenses enough to improve the finances. If you lose $500K in media income but cut expenses by a $1 million---you got your income back plus a little extra. If more regional conference create a few more drivable games--schools might even see higher ticket sales due to visiting fans. Not to mention, Fox SW might be back at the table if a conference has 12 schools in the Fox-SW footprint.

While a full realignment would be really nice, I think if FAU and FIU moved back to the Sunbelt, that will resolve a few issues. F_U's have more SB schools in the geographic area than CUSA. It would group into more regional divisions.

CUSA:
West: UTEP, NT, UTSA, Rice, LA Tech, S. Miss
East: Marshall, ODU, UNCC, MTSU, WKU, UAB

SB:
West: Tex. St, ULL, ULM, Ark St, Troy, USA
East: App St, GSU, Ga. So, CCU, FAU, FIU.

I doubt the SBC would go for that considering the CFP money would not go up to cover the 2 additional members plus other conf revenue would be split more ways. The SBC is the only FBS conference at the ideal membership number to fit the newest rules. The 10 members can have a champ game and the limit of 10 million per conf in CFP distribution plus the distribution of conf strength reward from CFP seems to be finite per conf.

This is true the CFP money is the conference revenue.
That is mostly true now for CUSA also with the new TV deal.
My guess is the SBC will get half of what CUSA got in TV money. So 83k to 125k or no real difference and no championship game.

(06-08-2016 09:46 AM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  

(06-08-2016 09:27 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(06-07-2016 06:38 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-07-2016 01:25 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  I will say this: I never bought into the idea of a geographical reshuffle of CUSA and Sun Belt — the logistics would be borderline impossible — but if these numbers hash out, then the difference between the two contracts are low enough that it becomes more feasible. I mean, if you're going to get peanuts, at least shorten the drive to the peanut store.

I agree. For these fantasy SB/CUSA realignment scenarios to work, the money and bowl access had to pretty much even out. It looks like that has occurred. So the conditions are now set up for two regional conferences (one west and one east) to form if enough schools begin to see it as a way to cut expenses enough to improve the finances. If you lose $500K in media income but cut expenses by a $1 million---you got your income back plus a little extra. If more regional conference create a few more drivable games--schools might even see higher ticket sales due to visiting fans. Not to mention, Fox SW might be back at the table if a conference has 12 schools in the Fox-SW footprint.

While a full realignment would be really nice, I think if FAU and FIU moved back to the Sunbelt, that will resolve a few issues. F_U's have more SB schools in the geographic area than CUSA. It would group into more regional divisions.

CUSA:
West: UTEP, NT, UTSA, Rice, LA Tech, S. Miss
East: Marshall, ODU, UNCC, MTSU, WKU, UAB

SB:
West: Tex. St, ULL, ULM, Ark St, Troy, USA
East: App St, GSU, Ga. So, CCU, FAU, FIU.

I doubt the SBC would go for that considering the CFP money would not go up to cover the 2 additional members plus other conf revenue would be split more ways. The SBC is the only FBS conference at the ideal membership number to fit the newest rules. The 10 members can have a champ game and the limit of 10 million per conf in CFP distribution plus the distribution of conf strength reward from CFP seems to be finite per conf.

While that is true, I guess we'll see if having 2 - 5 team divisions is really feasible. With 8 conference games it could work for a while... I guess we'll have to see this play out.

(06-08-2016 09:46 AM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  I doubt the SBC would go for that considering the CFP money would not go up to cover the 2 additional members plus other conf revenue would be split more ways. The SBC is the only FBS conference at the ideal membership number to fit the newest rules. The 10 members can have a champ game and the limit of 10 million per conf in CFP distribution plus the distribution of conf strength reward from CFP seems to be finite per conf.

Right. The new CCG rules combined with the formula for distributing CFP money to the G5s are strong incentives to have exactly 10 members in a conference.

C-USA airport meeting?

One more thing to consider when considering the benefits of a CUSA/SB reorganization into 2 much more concentrated regional conferences is the secondary revenue streams. These semi-bus leagues that would result from a mash up of these two conferences are likely to have MUCH more financially successful conference basketball tournaments since the tournament will be centrally located and easily drivable for most every schools fan base. Additionally, the league CCG for football is probably more likely to sell out because more visiting fans can get there with an easy drive.

How does the CUSA get down to 10? Even if the Big 12 took four from the AAC, I don't think the AAC would take four from CUSA. They'd probably try to get Army and Navy as full members to get to eight, then perhaps take UAB and Rice to get to 10.

I'm just not a fan of staying at 10. Probably my biggest concern is having a compelling CCG match-up. With 8 conf. games and 10 teams there is an 88% chance of a rematch. Compare this with 72% with 12 teams and 61.5% chance of a rematch with a 14 team conference. I'm not saying it's the worst thing, splitting the pie with more and earning less is worse, but I'd like to find a way to bring in a couple more quality schools AND make it more profitable for the conference. UTA and LR starting football would solve many issues in this league but as long as there are conferences fluctuating between and 10 and 14 members you will still see schools jockeying for positions and realigning taking place.

There have been several of these "reorganize the CUSA" threads. Most times it comes from outside the conference. I have yet to hear a CUSA member say they want to go join Sunbelt teams, which this is really all about. It is not going to happen.

(06-08-2016 12:25 PM)redfan Wrote:  There have been several of these "reorganize the CUSA" threads. Most times it comes from outside the conference. I have yet to hear a CUSA member say they want to go join Sunbelt teams, which this is really all about. It is not going to happen.

Well it won't come from a message board thread. It will come from a university president saying "This S### sucks. How do we fix it"

That's how MWC, SEC, ACC, CUSA, Big XII, Big 8, WAC, Pac-12 all started.

(06-08-2016 12:40 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(06-08-2016 12:25 PM)redfan Wrote:  There have been several of these "reorganize the CUSA" threads. Most times it comes from outside the conference. I have yet to hear a CUSA member say they want to go join Sunbelt teams, which this is really all about. It is not going to happen.

Well it won't come from a message board thread. It will come from a university president saying "This S### sucks. How do we fix it"

That's how MWC, SEC, ACC, CUSA, Big XII, Big 8, WAC, Pac-12 all started.

A CUSA member would be represented by the president and none have any desire to join with Sunbelt teams in any type of reorganization. It is not going to happen.

(06-08-2016 12:40 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(06-08-2016 12:25 PM)redfan Wrote:  There have been several of these "reorganize the CUSA" threads. Most times it comes from outside the conference. I have yet to hear a CUSA member say they want to go join Sunbelt teams, which this is really all about. It is not going to happen.

Well it won't come from a message board thread. It will come from a university president saying "This S### sucks. How do we fix it"

That's how MWC, SEC, ACC, CUSA, Big XII, Big 8, WAC, Pac-12 all started.

The "MWC approach", where a few schools unilaterally start a breakaway league and leave their former conference mates to pick up the pieces, would be the only feasible way to do anything like this. Secret meeting in San Antonio or wherever, take who you want for your new league, and find some loophole to avoid exit fees. Let the remaining SBC and CUSA schools figure out who has to stay with UL-Monroe and the no-football SBC schools (UT-Arlington and UALR), how they put the remaining schools back together, etc.

But the NCAA rule changes on autobids and "core conferences" make it very unattractive to start a brand new conference. They have effectively blocked future use of the MWC approach.

The alternative is getting 26 sets of school administrators, all under pressure from their various constituencies, to agree upon and accept a massive reshuffling of two conferences, without offering each of them a benefit large enough to make them want to do it.