CSNbbs

(04-10-2013 11:58 AM)arkstfan Wrote: [ -> ]Let's assume it is true CUSA is considering going to 16.

Let's assume that CUSA makes the invitation by July 1, 2013.

The two new schools would enter July 1, 2014.

Based on past reports, entry fee would be aproximately $2 million each probably in the form of waived conference distributions in 2014-2015 and 2015-16.

2016-2017 is the final year of the CUSA TV deals... UNLESS during negotiations in 2015-16 CUSA agrees to new deals with the existing TV partners during the exclusive negotiation period in which case they go ahead and replace the final year of the contract and begin it in 2016-17 (the first year the new members take full shares).

Or, they don't like what is offered and go to the marketplace and the new deal is for 2017-?

CUSA members lose basically nothing the first two years the new members are in. The CUSA TV deal has a reported value of $1 million per member (the $1.2 was based on a 12 member CUSA). In the first two years the waived revenue of the two new members is $1 million each. In other words they get none of the stated value of the TV deal (or they lump sum a cash payment in to replace what is lost).

Not until 2016-17 is there a "more mouths to feed" argument and we don't know if the current TV deal is in effect or not because CUSA hasn't started the exclusive negotiation window with Fox and CBS. That final year it costs the rest of CUSA $125,000 to have gone to 16 so the two new members have to generate $2 million in league revenue to offset that.

Where CUSA finishes in the CFP with and without them might be enough to cover the offset even if they hold $0 in TV value.

What is scary is what happens if the shifts in the TV marketplace results in an offer that is less than $16 million per year? If that happens everyone is losing money compared to where they were.

If that happens you have the Big XII panic all over, you have Mountain Goat panic all over and CUSA splits apart. But adding or not adding that same scenario looms in 2016 whether or not CUSA adds members.

AAC faces the same in 2020.

While I understand your thought process, I can't see presidents thinking this way. There would need to be a tangible financial benefit for such a move, not a thought process that says: "stAte and ULL would work for free for two years anyway, so why not invite them".

Have to assume they would be full members from a revenue and expense standpoint in any calculation.

And, for the exact reasons you spoke of: Because so many media deals will be struck between 2014-2016 I think there will be a reluctance out there to be the only conference with 16 members until they have a better idea about what the market will be.

(04-10-2013 12:17 PM)bullet Wrote: [ -> ]Makes sense. If they were interested in finishing off the Sun Belt, they would have taken WKU and one of Arkansas St./ULL before Tulsa formally left. That would have left the Sun Belt with 6 going on 5 with Georgia State new to FBS and South Alabama and Texas St. only having 1 year under their belt. Those 3, Troy and La-Mo would probably be talking to the MAC. But they didn't move until the Sun Belt added 4 more schools.

Only two of the four additions are FBS qualified; the other two are beginning the process in July. That's 7 schools qualified to play FBS football.

If C-USA were to go to 16 with UL-L and ASU and lose two schools and replace them with Ga State (Atlanta) and Texas St (between Austin and San Antonio), the SBC would be left with USA and Troy (Mobil and Troy AL), Idaho (Moscow), UL-M (Monroe) and NMSU (Las Cruces) as your remaining 'qualified' FBS programs. App St. (Boone, NC) and Ga. Southern (Statesboro) are two years away and any additional FCS program added is at least that far away.

So though the confernce holds with its eight remaining members, two of which are basketball schools, you don't have an FBS conference. The far-flung nature of the remaining football schools is very, very similar to the last vestiges of the WAC.

(04-10-2013 12:43 PM)FIUFan Wrote: [ -> ]Only two of the four additions are FBS qualified; the other two are beginning the process in July. That's 7 schools qualified to play FBS football.

Yes, the pace of realignment here is as or more important as which schools move to which conferences. The Sunbelt having schools putting in their notice that they will move in the same year that Georgia Southern and Appy State are qualified FBS schools is a lot different from the Sunbelt having schools putting in their notice that they are leaving in 2014.

(04-10-2013 12:43 PM)FIUFan Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-10-2013 12:17 PM)bullet Wrote: [ -> ]Makes sense. If they were interested in finishing off the Sun Belt, they would have taken WKU and one of Arkansas St./ULL before Tulsa formally left. That would have left the Sun Belt with 6 going on 5 with Georgia State new to FBS and South Alabama and Texas St. only having 1 year under their belt. Those 3, Troy and La-Mo would probably be talking to the MAC. But they didn't move until the Sun Belt added 4 more schools.

Only two of the four additions are FBS qualified; the other two are beginning the process in July. That's 7 schools qualified to play FBS football.

If C-USA were to go to 16 with UL-L and ASU and lose two schools and replace them with Ga State (Atlanta) and Texas St (between Austin and San Antonio), the SBC would be left with USA and Troy (Mobil and Troy AL), Idaho (Moscow), UL-M (Monroe) and NMSU (Las Cruces) as your remaining 'qualified' FBS programs. App St. (Boone, NC) and Ga. Southern (Statesboro) are two years away and any additional FCS program added is at least that far away.

So though the confernce holds with its eight remaining members, two of which are basketball schools, you don't have an FBS conference. The far-flung nature of the remaining football schools is very, very similar to the last vestiges of the WAC.

Actually, no. GSU and AppState begin conference play in 2014. As such wins against us will count as FBS wins and both would be eligible for the conference championship game in 2014.

(04-10-2013 12:58 PM)GoAppsGo92 Wrote: [ -> ]Actually, no. GSU and AppState begin conference play in 2014. As such wins against us will count as FBS wins and both would be eligible for the conference championship game in 2014.

Are they really FBS qualified in 2014? You aren't FBS qualified when you start your transition, and an FBS school needs five FBS home games, with only one "FCS but enough scholarships" exception allowed.

(04-10-2013 01:01 PM)BruceMcF Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-10-2013 12:58 PM)GoAppsGo92 Wrote: [ -> ]Actually, no. GSU and AppState begin conference play in 2014. As such wins against us will count as FBS wins and both would be eligible for the conference championship game in 2014.

Are they really FBS qualified in 2014? You aren't FBS qualified when you start your transition, and an FBS school needs five FBS home games, with only one "FCS but enough scholarships" exception allowed.

Yes. The only thing we can't do is play in a bowl game (without a waiver from the NCAA) in 2014. That is why we had to walk away from a playoff run and a conference championship this year... so we could make that timetable for the SBC. If we are playing an SBC conference slate we will have plenty of FBS teams coming to Boone.

As far as I know, it's a two year transition process and as these two don't join until the 2013-14 fiscal year, they don't become full members until the 2015-16 year.

(04-10-2013 12:31 PM)GoAppsGo92 Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-10-2013 11:58 AM)arkstfan Wrote: [ -> ]Let's assume it is true CUSA is considering going to 16.

Let's assume that CUSA makes the invitation by July 1, 2013.

The two new schools would enter July 1, 2014.

Based on past reports, entry fee would be aproximately $2 million each probably in the form of waived conference distributions in 2014-2015 and 2015-16.

2016-2017 is the final year of the CUSA TV deals... UNLESS during negotiations in 2015-16 CUSA agrees to new deals with the existing TV partners during the exclusive negotiation period in which case they go ahead and replace the final year of the contract and begin it in 2016-17 (the first year the new members take full shares).

Or, they don't like what is offered and go to the marketplace and the new deal is for 2017-?

CUSA members lose basically nothing the first two years the new members are in. The CUSA TV deal has a reported value of $1 million per member (the $1.2 was based on a 12 member CUSA). In the first two years the waived revenue of the two new members is $1 million each. In other words they get none of the stated value of the TV deal (or they lump sum a cash payment in to replace what is lost).

Not until 2016-17 is there a "more mouths to feed" argument and we don't know if the current TV deal is in effect or not because CUSA hasn't started the exclusive negotiation window with Fox and CBS. That final year it costs the rest of CUSA $125,000 to have gone to 16 so the two new members have to generate $2 million in league revenue to offset that.

Where CUSA finishes in the CFP with and without them might be enough to cover the offset even if they hold $0 in TV value.

What is scary is what happens if the shifts in the TV marketplace results in an offer that is less than $16 million per year? If that happens everyone is losing money compared to where they were.

If that happens you have the Big XII panic all over, you have Mountain Goat panic all over and CUSA splits apart. But adding or not adding that same scenario looms in 2016 whether or not CUSA adds members.

AAC faces the same in 2020.

While I understand your thought process, I can't see presidents thinking this way. There would need to be a tangible financial benefit for such a move, not a thought process that says: "stAte and ULL would work for free for two years anyway, so why not invite them".

Have to assume they would be full members from a revenue and expense standpoint in any calculation.

And, for the exact reasons you spoke of: Because so many media deals will be struck between 2014-2016 I think there will be a reluctance out there to be the only conference with 16 members until they have a better idea about what the market will be.

But we have to come back around to the first problem.

UAB has successfully lobbied to add a number of schools to CUSA that made sense for them selling tickets, creating rivalries, and keeping travel costs low, and with the last addition is no longer in a division with those schools.

You want to fix that problem by adding two schools, X and Y are willing to join and will work for free and by the time we have to worry about mouths to feed its time to cut a new TV deal.

It's classic university administrative thought. I can fix this problem today and kick the can down the road for the next guy to worry about paying for.

(04-10-2013 01:04 PM)FIUFan Wrote: [ -> ]As far as I know, it's a two year transition process and as these two don't join until the 2013-14 fiscal year, they don't become full members until the 2015-16 year.

All this was explained in the press conferences at both GSU and AppState. We are unable to participate in the post season in FCS this year, or play for conference championships in the SoCon. It's as if we started the transition process the same time ODU did last year, because we filed our papers before May 2012.

In 2014, a win against GSU or AppState is an FBS win, and we are able to play for the conference championship as well.

(04-10-2013 01:04 PM)FIUFan Wrote: [ -> ]As far as I know, it's a two year transition process and as these two don't join until the 2013-14 fiscal year, they don't become full members until the 2015-16 year.

I will also add that all our Olympic sports start playing SunBelt schedules in 2014, and that both AppState and GSU's chancellors/presidents and AD's will participate in SBC meetings starting in May 2012.

(04-10-2013 01:03 PM)GoAppsGo92 Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-10-2013 01:01 PM)BruceMcF Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-10-2013 12:58 PM)GoAppsGo92 Wrote: [ -> ]Actually, no. GSU and AppState begin conference play in 2014. As such wins against us will count as FBS wins and both would be eligible for the conference championship game in 2014.

Are they really FBS qualified in 2014? You aren't FBS qualified when you start your transition, and an FBS school needs five FBS home games, with only one "FCS but enough scholarships" exception allowed.

Yes. The only thing we can't do is play in a bowl game (without a waiver from the NCAA) in 2014. That is why we had to walk away from a playoff run and a conference championship this year... so we could make that timetable for the SBC.

So in other words the reclassification will be complete in 2015. Remember the issue here is not the status of the two transitioning schools but rather the status of the conference

Quote:20.02.6 Football Bowl Subdivision Conference. A conference classified as a Football Bowl Subdivision conference shall be comprised of at least eight full Football Bowl Subdivision members that satisfy all bowl subdivision requirements. ...

There's a two year grace period if falling short is caused by an exit, but there is a one month gap between the movement of schools between conferences at July 1 and the reclassification of an FCS school that has completed its two year classification on August 1, and that opens up the threat of having under eight full FBS schools for two years and a day, when the grace period expires. That is why too many fully qualified schools putting in their notice for departure could cause problems.

USA, Troy, stAte, UL-Lafayette, ULM and WKY makes six fully qualified members in 2013 and the two year grace period clock would start ticking. Add Idaho and NMSU in 2013, and the clock does not start ticking.

Lose WKY and nobody else in 2014, and the clock does start ticking, but only for a month, because on 1 August Georgia State and Texas State become post-season eligible, which makes 9 fully qualified FBS schools. Then in 1 August 2015, Appalachian State and Georgia Southern reclassify and that makes 11 full FBS members.

(Note what happens here without Idaho and NMSU: the two year grace period clock starts 1 July 2013, and the conference doesn't hit 8+ fully qualified FBS members until two years and one month later.)

So that's your timeline: the two year grace period starts 1 July 2014 and, on present membership plans, the conference is back in compliance a month later.

Take any two of the current full FBS members out, either through exit or falling short of FBS compliance. Then the clock starts ticking 1 July 2014 and doesn't stop until Appy State and Georgia Southern transition on 1 August 2015.

Take any four of the current full FBS members out, either through exit or falling short of FBS compliance, and then the clock starts ticking 1 July 2014 and Appy State and Georgia Southern are not enough to stop it ticking on 1 August 2015, so in that scenario, without at least one more school completing its transition on 1 August 2015, the Sunbelt would be in trouble on the criteria.

I think the odds of the Sunbelt losing four or five of its members is pretty low, but the claim was that scenario would pose a problem for the Sunbelt, and it seems like it would: losing four, it needs to get one FCS school started transitioning (by 1 June this year) to comply by 1 August 2015, losing five, it needs to get two FCS schools transitioning, and the more transitioning schools you have, the more the five home FBS game requirement becomes a headache.

(04-10-2013 01:57 PM)BruceMcF Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-10-2013 01:03 PM)GoAppsGo92 Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-10-2013 01:01 PM)BruceMcF Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-10-2013 12:58 PM)GoAppsGo92 Wrote: [ -> ]Actually, no. GSU and AppState begin conference play in 2014. As such wins against us will count as FBS wins and both would be eligible for the conference championship game in 2014.

Are they really FBS qualified in 2014? You aren't FBS qualified when you start your transition, and an FBS school needs five FBS home games, with only one "FCS but enough scholarships" exception allowed.

Yes. The only thing we can't do is play in a bowl game (without a waiver from the NCAA) in 2014. That is why we had to walk away from a playoff run and a conference championship this year... so we could make that timetable for the SBC.

So in other words the reclassification will be complete in 2015. Remember the issue here is not the status of the two transitioning schools but rather the status of the conference

Quote:20.02.6 Football Bowl Subdivision Conference. A conference classified as a Football Bowl Subdivision conference shall be comprised of at least eight full Football Bowl Subdivision members that satisfy all bowl subdivision requirements. ...

I think the odds of the Sunbelt losing four or five of its members is pretty low, but the claim was that scenario would pose a problem for the Sunbelt, and it seems like it would: losing four, it needs to get one FCS school started transitioning (by 1 June this year) to comply by 1 August 2015, losing five, it needs to get two FCS schools transitioning, and the more transitioning schools you have, the more the five home FBS game requirement becomes a headache.

So in other words, its not going to happen. There are at least 4 FCS schools that would accept invites right now to the SBC and match our timeline by filing before the end of May. And if that doomsday scenario played out (4 teams leave) something like that would have "waiver" written all over it. We are on the same time table as ODU even though they filed for reclassification last year.

(04-08-2013 02:58 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote: [ -> ]Take UTEP for example. It has nothing in common with the vast majority of schools in C-USA. The only school left we have history with is Rice but it's been since 1996. UAB, Marshall and Southern Miss since 2005 which is just 8 years.

UTEP's history is with the MWC schools. It's in the Mountain Time zone and like most MWC schools, it's the only game in town. That's where we belong but the MWC won't expand anytime soon unless BYU goes back which is very unlikely. But it is what it is and we better make the best of it while in C-USA.

I think UTEP will find that it's going to benefit more from CUSA West, especially if the conference goes to 16 with Arkansas State and ULL. That's a good division, with good geography for everyone involved. UTEP will have three Texas rivals and possibly two in Louisiana. Both are recruiting hotbeds within the central time zone. Besides, there are UTEP alum all over San Antonio, Houston and Dallas.

(04-10-2013 05:06 PM)GoAppsGo92 Wrote: [ -> ]So in other words, its not going to happen. There are at least 4 FCS schools that would accept invites right now to the SBC and match our timeline by filing before the end of May.

The big conferences are not going to schedule their realignment games for the convenience of the Sunbelt.

Quote: And if that doomsday scenario played out (4 teams leave) something like that would have "waiver" written all over it. We are on the same time table as ODU even though they filed for reclassification last year.

The filing deadline is 1 June, to complete reclassification 1 August two years in the future. I don't know whether there is any public notice requirement, but I doubt it since an invite is required to start the transition period and it seems like App. State and Georgia Southern notified the NCAA before the Sunbelt made the invitation public. If there's no public notice requirement we'd have to see the paperwork or else someone reporting on the boring bureaucratic details to know who filed when. The loss of access to the FCS championship is on notification, which for various reasons could be well in advance of the 1 June deadline.

As far as waivers ~ I don't know, maybe they would. I know some of the tangle championship AQ bylaws stipulate no-waiver, but I've never looked closely enough at this particular tangle of bylaws to know for sure.

(04-08-2013 03:33 PM)chess Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-08-2013 12:27 PM)BeliefBlazer Wrote: [ -> ]It means UL and stAte want in, so Banowsky is talking to the tv guys. I would love for UAB to stay in the east

UAB east makes sense. UAB, Charlotte, and Old Dominion could create a nice basketball rivalry.

Along with Middle Tennesse and Western Kentucky. All serious basketball schools

(04-08-2013 04:37 PM)Louis Kitton Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-08-2013 04:30 PM)Wedge Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-08-2013 03:26 PM)arkstfan Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-08-2013 02:58 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote: [ -> ]Take UTEP for example. It has nothing in common with the vast majority of schools in C-USA. The only school left we have history with is Rice but it's been since 1996. UAB, Marshall and Southern Miss since 2005 which is just 8 years.

UTEP's history is with the MWC schools. It's in the Mountain Time zone and like most MWC schools, it's the only game in town. That's where we belong but the MWC won't expand anytime soon unless BYU goes back which is very unlikely. But it is what it is and we better make the best of it while in C-USA.

What UTEP needs is a 14th or 14th, 15th, 16th school that makes sense for MWC.

Guy I talked to today who is very dialed in nationally says UTEP would be in MWC if there were a 14th school the MWC can agree on.

If the MWC is serious about UTEP, then maybe Banowsky thinks UTEP and one other school (Rice or UTSA?) are gone eventually, and he just wants to reload before that happens.

UTEP and Rice leave and that leaves CUSA West with UNT, UTSA, ULL, LaTech, Arkansas State and USM....only 6 teams. Texas State can be 7 but who will be 8th?

I guess CUSA can worry about that bridge when they cross it.

Rice isn't going anywhere, especially to the MWC unless several other Texas schools come along. The president and athletic director made it clear at a forum last year that they wouldn't consider any conference that has bad geography. The president mentioned not wanting the student-athletes to miss any class or get behind on assignment due to traveling too much for athletics. They spoke about establishing rivalries with other schools in the region.

(04-09-2013 12:50 PM)Louis Kitton Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-09-2013 09:05 AM)arkstfan Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-09-2013 06:39 AM)He1nousOne Wrote: [ -> ]This is the CUSA we are talking about not a major conference. It matters less about getting into more States because let's face it, the conference is never going to have a conference network that pays out big. What the conference needs are competitive programs. Arkansas State and ULL provide that and they have a proven record in doing so.

So what if both of them have larger schools in their State that draw more fans? Once again, this is CUSA. For that matter so does Missouri State and I bet UL has more of a following in Louisiana than Missouri State does in Missouri.

Ark State and ULL will get you to bowls.

As far as getting to 16....take a look at all the schools involved and slice them into 4 divisions instead of two. Conferences are preparing.

A Sun Belt that has Arkansas State and Louisiana has a chance to finish ahead of CUSA in the CFP distribution based on performance. A Sun Belt without them is far less likely to do that.

Considering the millions involved, adding those two to assure CUSA never finishes last among the five and maybe contends for the top spots will generate more money for CUSA than TV agreeing to increase the TV deal so the per team remains the same.

That is a very good point that ASU/ULL would be able to increase CUSA's overall football performance and keep it ahead of the SBC.

A crucial thing for CUSA right now as they have so many young programs in the football conference (UTSA, ODU, Charlotte).

Agree with this. CUSA hit a few big-market home runs by adding UTSA, ODU and UNC-Charlotte, but it's a bit of a gamble. The football may have a harder time developing in FBS than we hope. Arkansas State and Louisiana-Lafayette bring you established FBS success, they're growing, and they fit the geography perfectly.

(04-10-2013 09:05 AM)S11 Wrote: [ -> ]Frankly due to the smaller tv deal it's a good idea to go to 16 in the non-fb sports. Add a couple regional fits that don't play football.

- You get to pay them a lesser cut of the tv deal than a fb member

- You get to recoup costs that much quicker

- You essentially bring in a designated hitter to ramp up your RPI and leverage for more NCAA credits.

- You reduce travel costs just as much

This is a good idea that they should seriously think about. Wichita State and NMSU would be good additions on the olympic sport level, especially in basketball. The East could also add a couple in order to keep thier travel costs down. If CUSA had 20 basketball-playing schools, there's no doubt the conference would be a two-bid league, especially given the additions that have already been made.

(04-10-2013 09:52 AM)BruceMcF Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-10-2013 09:40 AM)GoAppsGo92 Wrote: [ -> ]So the goal is to sabotage the SunBelt?

No, if the Sunbelt is taken out of the FBS in this way, its collateral damage resulting from a shift in commercial incentives which presently favor 12 school conferences.

I don't believe that there has been any such shift across the board. The American has not signaled any interest in going above 12, unless the service academies are available, and the MAC has not given the signal of being in any particular hurry to get to 14, which would go along with a fixed plan of going to 16. And the Mountain West has not given any indication of any interest in expansion after their reload to 10 from a raid that didn't actually happen left them at 12.

Rather, Conference USA is a special case, since they are on the margin between being a single-bid and multi-bid NCAA tourney conference and have unbalanced regional distribution in their two divisions which might allow a reduction in average travel expenses from more regionally compact divisions.

This is exactly what they're trying to do. The idea is to get the divisions as large, but as compact as possible. It will cut down on travel costs and foster rivalries.

(04-10-2013 05:51 PM)Afflicted Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-10-2013 09:52 AM)BruceMcF Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-10-2013 09:40 AM)GoAppsGo92 Wrote: [ -> ]So the goal is to sabotage the SunBelt?

No, if the Sunbelt is taken out of the FBS in this way, its collateral damage resulting from a shift in commercial incentives which presently favor 12 school conferences.

I don't believe that there has been any such shift across the board. The American has not signaled any interest in going above 12, unless the service academies are available, and the MAC has not given the signal of being in any particular hurry to get to 14, which would go along with a fixed plan of going to 16. And the Mountain West has not given any indication of any interest in expansion after their reload to 10 from a raid that didn't actually happen left them at 12.

Rather, Conference USA is a special case, since they are on the margin between being a single-bid and multi-bid NCAA tourney conference and have unbalanced regional distribution in their two divisions which might allow a reduction in average travel expenses from more regionally compact divisions.

This is exactly what they're trying to do. The idea is to get the divisions as large, but as compact as possible. It will cut down on travel costs and foster rivalries.

A CUSA 16 with two more western schools is a league where most teams are boarding a bus 2 or 3 times a year to play football road games rather than a charter flight.

They may also believe it strengthens the regional TV deal ahead of the new negotiations.