(10-18-2022 09:36 PM)TOPSTRAIGHT Wrote:  Some rumors (just rumors) of a GOR with this media deal.

I find it difficult to believe.

A GOR wouldn't mean much. Let's say we received a 5 year deal at $1M per school per year. It would only cost a school $5M to buy its way out and cost less each year.

Hard to understand why CUSA would not bring in as much money as other G5s.
Here are some viewership for G5 games or FCS games. Not including P5 games
FAMU v Jackson State 958K
SF Austin v Jacksonville State 541K
Howard v Alabama St 485K
Cal Poly v Fresno 167K
E Michigan v ULaLa didnt rate
UT Martin v Boise St 214K
Marshall v Bowling Green 169K
Nevada v Air Force 312K
Coastal v Ga State 224K
Toledo v San Diego St 145K
Tulane v Houston 1.22M
Navy v Air Force 1.13M
San Diego St v Boise St 407K
Temple v Memphis didnt rate
Miami v Buffalo didnt rate
C Michigan v Toledo didnt rate
Houston v Memphis 699K
Air Force v Utah St 433K
Colorado St v Nevada 433K
Fresno St v Boise St 375K
JMU v Ark State 103K
ECU v Tulane didnt rate
Navy v SMU 959K
Temple v UCF 603K
ULaLa v Marshall 496K
ODU V Coastal didnt rate
Memphis v ECU didnt rate
Tulane v USF didnt rate
UL Monroe v South Alabama didnt rate
Memphis v ECU didnt rate
San Jose St v Fresno St didnt rate

Not many CUSA teams or future team games are in the rating system

I know you guys were just throwing out some numbers for examples-- but.

IMO the deal will be much shorter (2-4) years. I hope.

Money- my guess is 300,000 to 600,000 per school-- remember everyone is saying exposure not money.

If there is much in the way of Tues., Wed. (double ugh) night games-- then it better be a million or more.

(10-18-2022 09:36 PM)TOPSTRAIGHT Wrote:  Some rumors (just rumors) of a GOR with this media deal.

I find it difficult to believe.

I can't imagine who would agree to that.

Seems bad.

(10-19-2022 07:22 AM)inutech Wrote:  

(10-18-2022 09:36 PM)TOPSTRAIGHT Wrote:  Some rumors (just rumors) of a GOR with this media deal.

I find it difficult to believe.

I can't imagine who would agree to that.

Seems bad.

All of the Presidents should be willing to sign if written correctly. Makes the league more stable and shows a sign of commitment. If a school has a chance to move to truly better conference you allow it with predetermined conditions but not to a sideways or lower move. If you would have had this in the past CUSA would not have lost Marshall or ODU, may would have lost USM. Moving just to move should cost some money.

(10-19-2022 07:43 AM)Gemofthehills Wrote:  

(10-19-2022 07:22 AM)inutech Wrote:  

(10-18-2022 09:36 PM)TOPSTRAIGHT Wrote:  Some rumors (just rumors) of a GOR with this media deal.

I find it difficult to believe.

I can't imagine who would agree to that.

Seems bad.

All of the Presidents should be willing to sign if written correctly. Makes the league more stable and shows a sign of commitment. If a school has a chance to move to truly better conference you allow it with predetermined conditions but not to a sideways or lower move. If you would have had this in the past CUSA would not have lost Marshall or ODU, may would have lost USM. Moving just to move should cost some money.

1. We would all leave for something better.
2. There are some schools the rest of us wouldn't mind seeing leave.
3. Just to troll the 9 who are leaving, I think we should remove all penalties.
4. If UTEP goes, NMSU has to go with them.
5. On the other hand, the rights we'd be granting aren't exactly super valuable.
6. This isn't a group of schools that really needs to be cemented together for all of time. It's just a marriage of convenience with a couple of pairs in it.

Do we have a narrower time-frame for announcement besides "before the end of the year"

Would a GOR be beneficial to the conference? If the end result is a good media deal for the conference and its member schools, I say yes. Would it be unwarranted for a media outlet to ask for some stability before giving money to that conference? No, I don’t think so. This conference (like any conference) needs stability. The one foot out the door, we’re just waiting for something better mentality is definitely not beneficial to this conference or any conference. No media outlet would want any part of that mindset. And if you’re waiting to leave, where are you going? The MAC? Really? Most people outside of the MAC think of them as those Michigan and Ohio schools. In the Baskin-Robbins 31 flavors, they’re vanilla. The MWC? They’re as unstable right now as any conference. The Sun Belt? I think they are about to make the same mistake as C-USA 3.0 made. Too many members. I think they’re going to have far more under- preforming teams dragging them down, than good teams lifting them up. The AAC? There seems to already be regrets from many there about taking on the current incoming members. And nobody is going to get a call up from a P5 conference anytime soon. So why would anyone not want some stability going forward? Why would anyone in this conference not want to do whatever is necessary to build this conference into a successful and thriving conference? I think anyone would want what’s best for this conference, unless of course you have one foot out the door and waiting on something better.

(10-19-2022 08:34 AM)inutech Wrote:  

(10-19-2022 07:43 AM)Gemofthehills Wrote:  

(10-19-2022 07:22 AM)inutech Wrote:  

(10-18-2022 09:36 PM)TOPSTRAIGHT Wrote:  Some rumors (just rumors) of a GOR with this media deal.

I find it difficult to believe.

I can't imagine who would agree to that.

Seems bad.

All of the Presidents should be willing to sign if written correctly. Makes the league more stable and shows a sign of commitment. If a school has a chance to move to truly better conference you allow it with predetermined conditions but not to a sideways or lower move. If you would have had this in the past CUSA would not have lost Marshall or ODU, may would have lost USM. Moving just to move should cost some money.

1. We would all leave for something better.
2. There are some schools the rest of us wouldn't mind seeing leave.
3. Just to troll the 9 who are leaving, I think we should remove all penalties.
4. If UTEP goes, NMSU has to go with them.
5. On the other hand, the rights we'd be granting aren't exactly super valuable.
6. This isn't a group of schools that really needs to be cemented together for all of time. It's just a marriage of convenience with a couple of pairs in it.

Well stated.

If FIU, UTEP/NMSU or even Liberty have the chance to leave, I think we should help them out just to improve the geography. It's a win-win scenario.

(10-19-2022 10:42 AM)dawgonit Wrote:  

(10-19-2022 08:34 AM)inutech Wrote:  

(10-19-2022 07:43 AM)Gemofthehills Wrote:  

(10-19-2022 07:22 AM)inutech Wrote:  

(10-18-2022 09:36 PM)TOPSTRAIGHT Wrote:  Some rumors (just rumors) of a GOR with this media deal.

I find it difficult to believe.

I can't imagine who would agree to that.

Seems bad.

All of the Presidents should be willing to sign if written correctly. Makes the league more stable and shows a sign of commitment. If a school has a chance to move to truly better conference you allow it with predetermined conditions but not to a sideways or lower move. If you would have had this in the past CUSA would not have lost Marshall or ODU, may would have lost USM. Moving just to move should cost some money.

1. We would all leave for something better.
2. There are some schools the rest of us wouldn't mind seeing leave.
3. Just to troll the 9 who are leaving, I think we should remove all penalties.
4. If UTEP goes, NMSU has to go with them.
5. On the other hand, the rights we'd be granting aren't exactly super valuable.
6. This isn't a group of schools that really needs to be cemented together for all of time. It's just a marriage of convenience with a couple of pairs in it.

Well stated.

If FIU, UTEP/NMSU or even Liberty have the chance to leave, I think we should help them out just to improve the geography. It's a win-win scenario.

So, eliminating 4 established FBS schools and having to replace them with 4 FCS schools to go along with the 2 incoming FCS schools is a win-win for C-USA. WOW, I'm speechless!

(10-19-2022 10:55 AM)3DogNight Wrote:  

(10-19-2022 10:42 AM)dawgonit Wrote:  

(10-19-2022 08:34 AM)inutech Wrote:  

(10-19-2022 07:43 AM)Gemofthehills Wrote:  

(10-19-2022 07:22 AM)inutech Wrote:  I can't imagine who would agree to that.

Seems bad.

All of the Presidents should be willing to sign if written correctly. Makes the league more stable and shows a sign of commitment. If a school has a chance to move to truly better conference you allow it with predetermined conditions but not to a sideways or lower move. If you would have had this in the past CUSA would not have lost Marshall or ODU, may would have lost USM. Moving just to move should cost some money.

1. We would all leave for something better.
2. There are some schools the rest of us wouldn't mind seeing leave.
3. Just to troll the 9 who are leaving, I think we should remove all penalties.
4. If UTEP goes, NMSU has to go with them.
5. On the other hand, the rights we'd be granting aren't exactly super valuable.
6. This isn't a group of schools that really needs to be cemented together for all of time. It's just a marriage of convenience with a couple of pairs in it.

Well stated.

If FIU, UTEP/NMSU or even Liberty have the chance to leave, I think we should help them out just to improve the geography. It's a win-win scenario.

So, eliminating 4 established FBS schools and having to replace them with 4 FCS schools to go along with the 2 incoming FCS schools is a win-win for C-USA. WOW, I'm speechless!

That was my first thought too. There are no other willing FBS programs out there for us.

Personally, I'm happy with those four. FIU is the only one that is out of sorts but the advantage of playing in Florida for recruiting benefits balances that out somewhat.

(10-19-2022 10:37 AM)3DogNight Wrote:  Would a GOR be beneficial to the conference? If the end result is a good media deal for the conference and its member schools, I say yes. Would it be unwarranted for a media outlet to ask for some stability before giving money to that conference? No, I don’t think so. This conference (like any conference) needs stability. The one foot out the door, we’re just waiting for something better mentality is definitely not beneficial to this conference or any conference. No media outlet would want any part of that mindset. And if you’re waiting to leave, where are you going? The MAC? Really? Most people outside of the MAC think of them as those Michigan and Ohio schools. In the Baskin-Robbins 31 flavors, they’re vanilla. The MWC? They’re as unstable right now as any conference. The Sun Belt? I think they are about to make the same mistake as C-USA 3.0 made. Too many members. I think they’re going to have far more under- preforming teams dragging them down, than good teams lifting them up. The AAC? There seems to already be regrets from many there about taking on the current incoming members. And nobody is going to get a call up from a P5 conference anytime soon. So why would anyone not want some stability going forward? Why would anyone in this conference not want to do whatever is necessary to build this conference into a successful and thriving conference? I think anyone would want what’s best for this conference, unless of course you have one foot out the door and waiting on something better.

If there is no place to go, there is no need for a GOR and we'll have all the stability in the world.

If there is a better place to go, why make it harder on yourself to leave?

There are 10 teams with one foot out the door. And that's ok. This group isn't destined to be together for decades (we all hope). It's just an "any port in a storm" situation. Sooner or later, there will be more changes (and that's ok, too, as a matter of fact, it's what we're all hoping for).

And as I stated above, it's not just that I want my school to find a better home (although, yeah - that's the main thing). It's that the conference could improve when/if some teams leave. People always talk about how the SB made all the right moves bringing in App St. and Coastal, but the thing that really helped their average SP+ or Sagarin or whatever was actually cutting NMSU and Idaho loose (or helped just as much).

Look how our basketball ranking is improving even now.

You don't want to close yourself off from addition by subtraction anymore than you want to close yourself off from being free to leave if you get a better offer.

(10-18-2022 04:09 PM)JCMiner Wrote:  ESPN+

ESPN Minus is what I call it.

(10-19-2022 10:55 AM)3DogNight Wrote:  

(10-19-2022 10:42 AM)dawgonit Wrote:  

(10-19-2022 08:34 AM)inutech Wrote:  

(10-19-2022 07:43 AM)Gemofthehills Wrote:  

(10-19-2022 07:22 AM)inutech Wrote:  I can't imagine who would agree to that.

Seems bad.

All of the Presidents should be willing to sign if written correctly. Makes the league more stable and shows a sign of commitment. If a school has a chance to move to truly better conference you allow it with predetermined conditions but not to a sideways or lower move. If you would have had this in the past CUSA would not have lost Marshall or ODU, may would have lost USM. Moving just to move should cost some money.

1. We would all leave for something better.
2. There are some schools the rest of us wouldn't mind seeing leave.
3. Just to troll the 9 who are leaving, I think we should remove all penalties.
4. If UTEP goes, NMSU has to go with them.
5. On the other hand, the rights we'd be granting aren't exactly super valuable.
6. This isn't a group of schools that really needs to be cemented together for all of time. It's just a marriage of convenience with a couple of pairs in it.

Well stated.

If FIU, UTEP/NMSU or even Liberty have the chance to leave, I think we should help them out just to improve the geography. It's a win-win scenario.

So, eliminating 4 established FBS schools and having to replace them with 4 FCS schools to go along with the 2 incoming FCS schools is a win-win for C-USA. WOW, I'm speechless!

I don't foresee all four leaving. I wouldn't expect that to happen. I was imagining one or (in the case of NMSU/UTEP) two leaving. If we lose one, we can stand pat at 9.

(10-18-2022 07:11 PM)Hootyhoo Wrote:  Idk if I'd like this as fan. But we're spitballing here. Could we do the opposite of the mac? We all play week 0 and 1 ooc. Bye week at the same time, then play midweek for 4 or 5 weeks when there is no midweek football before maction starts up. Then we bye again and go back to Saturdays. maybe do 9 conference games since finding ooc that late in the season could be hard.

I could see that getting 3 or 4 conference games on tv every week for the 4 or 5 weeks of midweek games.

I don't even think you have to do that.

SBC Tues/Wed game this year are week 7&8. Maction starts week 10.

CUSA can "fill in the gaps" say week 5-6 and week 9. Saturday deal with CBSSN. All others ESPN+. I think a perfect timeline would be a 4 year deal starting 2023. The landscape could be vastly different after 2026. I don't think ESPN would agree to such a short term deal since it has its other contracts out past 2030 but who knows.

(10-19-2022 10:28 AM)jbuck1999 Wrote:  Do we have a narrower time-frame for announcement besides "before the end of the year"

I'm actually expecting it within weeks...probably before November.

(10-19-2022 10:59 AM)WKUApollo Wrote:  

(10-19-2022 10:55 AM)3DogNight Wrote:  

(10-19-2022 10:42 AM)dawgonit Wrote:  

(10-19-2022 08:34 AM)inutech Wrote:  

(10-19-2022 07:43 AM)Gemofthehills Wrote:  All of the Presidents should be willing to sign if written correctly. Makes the league more stable and shows a sign of commitment. If a school has a chance to move to truly better conference you allow it with predetermined conditions but not to a sideways or lower move. If you would have had this in the past CUSA would not have lost Marshall or ODU, may would have lost USM. Moving just to move should cost some money.

1. We would all leave for something better.
2. There are some schools the rest of us wouldn't mind seeing leave.
3. Just to troll the 9 who are leaving, I think we should remove all penalties.
4. If UTEP goes, NMSU has to go with them.
5. On the other hand, the rights we'd be granting aren't exactly super valuable.
6. This isn't a group of schools that really needs to be cemented together for all of time. It's just a marriage of convenience with a couple of pairs in it.

Well stated.

If FIU, UTEP/NMSU or even Liberty have the chance to leave, I think we should help them out just to improve the geography. It's a win-win scenario.

So, eliminating 4 established FBS schools and having to replace them with 4 FCS schools to go along with the 2 incoming FCS schools is a win-win for C-USA. WOW, I'm speechless!

That was my first thought too. There are no other willing FBS programs out there for us.

Personally, I'm happy with those four. FIU is the only one that is out of sorts but the advantage of playing in Florida for recruiting benefits balances that out somewhat.

That's not what was said. If they all leave, that's probably bad for us. But if one of that group (or both UTEP and NMSU) then in some ways that's not so bad.

(10-18-2022 12:36 PM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  

(10-18-2022 12:24 PM)jones682 Wrote:  What company do you think the new TV deal will be? ESPN, CBS, FOX, Amazon, Stadium just to name a few

Some rumors (no facts known) that have appeared on twitter, and the always reliable realignment board, say that CUSA will not have so many partners. Likely 2 and most likely cbssn and espn. Some speculation thar Turner Sports might be interested. We should know by at least sometime in December.

Some also speculate that in order to get a decent deal, there will have to be a GOR of some kind.

I remember Vannini's article in The Athletic noted Octagon was the media consultant C-USA retained, and that early discussions included both CBS and ESPN. Stadium may have a reduced role for local broadcasts.

If they got some deal that got had weekly linear TV games on CBSSN (with an option for CBS to flex to the main network for say a weeknight game if they have an open timslot), ESPN/ESPN2/ESPNU, with a few local simulcasts via Stadium if possible , and everything available to stream on one of ESPN+ or Paramount+, I think that could work out pretty well since people would only have to check one of two places to find their team's game, and cord-cutters have relatively accessible and familiar options as well.

I don't understand how we lost 9 schools and some of y'all seem to think we're getting a raise.

(10-19-2022 11:00 AM)inutech Wrote:  

(10-19-2022 10:37 AM)3DogNight Wrote:  Would a GOR be beneficial to the conference? If the end result is a good media deal for the conference and its member schools, I say yes. Would it be unwarranted for a media outlet to ask for some stability before giving money to that conference? No, I don’t think so. This conference (like any conference) needs stability. The one foot out the door, we’re just waiting for something better mentality is definitely not beneficial to this conference or any conference. No media outlet would want any part of that mindset. And if you’re waiting to leave, where are you going? The MAC? Really? Most people outside of the MAC think of them as those Michigan and Ohio schools. In the Baskin-Robbins 31 flavors, they’re vanilla. The MWC? They’re as unstable right now as any conference. The Sun Belt? I think they are about to make the same mistake as C-USA 3.0 made. Too many members. I think they’re going to have far more under- preforming teams dragging them down, than good teams lifting them up. The AAC? There seems to already be regrets from many there about taking on the current incoming members. And nobody is going to get a call up from a P5 conference anytime soon. So why would anyone not want some stability going forward? Why would anyone in this conference not want to do whatever is necessary to build this conference into a successful and thriving conference? I think anyone would want what’s best for this conference, unless of course you have one foot out the door and waiting on something better.

If there is no place to go, there is no need for a GOR and we'll have all the stability in the world.

If there is a better place to go, why make it harder on yourself to stay?

There are 10 teams with one foot out the door. And that's ok. This group isn't destined to be together for decades (we all hope). It's just an "any port in a storm" situation. Sooner or later, there will be more changes (and that's ok, too, as a matter of fact, it's what we're all hoping for).

And as I stated above, it's not just that I want my school to find a better home (although, yeah - that's the main thing). It's that the conference could improve when/if some teams leave. People always talk about how the SB made all the right moves bringing in App St. and Coastal, but the thing that really helped their average SP+ or Sagarin or whatever was actually cutting NMSU and Idaho loose (or helped just as much).

Look how our basketball ranking is improving even now.

You don't want to close yourself off from addition by subtraction anymore than you want to close yourself off from being free to leave if you get a better offer.

Where is this better home that you speak of? What makes it a better home? What makes you so sure that you won’t get the urge to cut and run when you get there? Someone once said, “The grass is always greener over the septic tank.” If C-USA gets a good media deal and the current and future members support this conference, there’s no reason whatsoever that C-USA cannot become the premier G5 conference.