No program is a sure fire success. Each is hit it or miss, or doesn't nice the needle significantly in any which way. CUSA would be smart to stay at 13. CFP distribution is capped at 12 shares for G5 programs. Each team you add is money out of your pocket. Is a nice round number worth several hundred thousand dollars per year?
UAB staying is the best option. Adding no one is at least a net gain, monetarily. You guys don't need any more projects. JMO
But how would you split the divisions? Which side would get 7 ans which side would get six? Who gets the extra OOC games.
(12-01-2014 01:14 PM)Fitbud Wrote: [ -> ]But how would you split the divisions? Which side would get 7 ans which side would get six? Who gets the extra OOC games.
C-USA had a 13-team football alignment for this (2013) season and made it work. Basically you're replacing UAB with Charlotte.
Or you could add a football-only member as #14 for football and leave UAB as #14 for other sports. There are several universities that would jump at the chance to do that. UMass is one but there are others.
First of all, each team does not lose hundreds of thousands by adding a 14 member. If you divide the $12 million 14 ways instead of 13, each school would lose approximately $66,000.
Secondly, even if C-USA amends the bylaws to keep UAB if they lose their football program, UAB still has to add a sixth men's sport to keep their D1 membership. I don't know much about UAB's situation, but I don't trust their leadership to keep the D1 status if they don't care to keep football.
In the end, hopefully all this talk is pointless and UAB somehow keeps their program.
(12-01-2014 01:36 PM)EpicNiner Wrote: [ -> ]First of all, each team does not lose hundreds of thousands by adding a 14 member. If you divide the $12 million 14 ways instead of 13, each school would lose approximately $66,000.
Secondly, even if C-USA amends the bylaws to keep UAB if they lose their football program, UAB still has to add a sixth men's sport to keep their D1 membership. I don't know much about UAB's situation, but I don't trust their leadership to keep the D1 status if they don't care to keep football.
In the end, hopefully all this talk is pointless and UAB somehow keeps their program.
They already have addressed the hard part, they have 3 men's teams sports - soccer, basketball and baseball. The easiest sports to add from a cost standpoint to get to 6 would be Cross Country - 5 scholarships, or Rifle - 3.6 scholarships. Not only are these low scholarship count sports, they already have women's Cross Country and Rifle teams.
(12-01-2014 01:20 PM)Native Georgian Wrote: [ -> ] (12-01-2014 01:14 PM)Fitbud Wrote: [ -> ]But how would you split the divisions? Which side would get 7 ans which side would get six? Who gets the extra OOC games.
C-USA had a 13-team football alignment for this (2013) season and made it work. Basically you're replacing UAB with Charlotte.
Or you could add a football-only member as #14 for football and leave UAB as #14 for other sports. There are several universities that would jump at the chance to do that. UMass is one but there are others.
If a program wants to be football-only badly enough, you could make it a condition of the deal that they don't get a share of the CFP money. That way you're still only splitting the money 13 ways.
Or if you add a full member, make it a condition that their conference revenue share is phased in over 5 years -- zero the first year, adding 25% each year until they get a full share in their fifth year in the league.
(12-01-2014 02:26 PM)Wedge Wrote: [ -> ]If a program wants to be football-only badly enough, you could make it a condition of the deal that they don't get a share of the CFP money. That way you're still only splitting the money 13 ways.
The Sun Belt has two non-football members: Arkansas/Little Rock and Texas/Arlington. I don't know for sure but assume that they do not receive shares of football-related-revenue from the SBC. There's no inherent reason why UAB couldn't get the same deal from C-USA.
Quote:Or if you add a full member, make it a condition that their conference revenue share is phased in over 5 years -- zero the first year, adding 25% each year until they get a full share in their fifth year in the league.
That's a realistic scenario, too. But that would be a cruel blow to expel UAB from a league they helped to create, and have remained a part of for 20 years.
(12-01-2014 03:04 PM)Native Georgian Wrote: [ -> ] (12-01-2014 02:26 PM)Wedge Wrote: [ -> ]If a program wants to be football-only badly enough, you could make it a condition of the deal that they don't get a share of the CFP money. That way you're still only splitting the money 13 ways.
The Sun Belt has two non-football members: Arkansas/Little Rock and Texas/Arlington. I don't know for sure but assume that they do not receive shares of football-related-revenue from the SBC. There's no inherent reason why UAB couldn't get the same deal from C-USA.
Quote:Or if you add a full member, make it a condition that their conference revenue share is phased in over 5 years -- zero the first year, adding 25% each year until they get a full share in their fifth year in the league.
That's a realistic scenario, too. But that would be a cruel blow to expel UAB from a league they helped to create, and have remained a part of for 20 years.
I don't think they should be expelled, either. It doesn't really harm the other members to let UAB continue in the league.
(12-01-2014 03:34 PM)Wedge Wrote: [ -> ] (12-01-2014 03:04 PM)Native Georgian Wrote: [ -> ] (12-01-2014 02:26 PM)Wedge Wrote: [ -> ]If a program wants to be football-only badly enough, you could make it a condition of the deal that they don't get a share of the CFP money. That way you're still only splitting the money 13 ways.
The Sun Belt has two non-football members: Arkansas/Little Rock and Texas/Arlington. I don't know for sure but assume that they do not receive shares of football-related-revenue from the SBC. There's no inherent reason why UAB couldn't get the same deal from C-USA.
Quote:Or if you add a full member, make it a condition that their conference revenue share is phased in over 5 years -- zero the first year, adding 25% each year until they get a full share in their fifth year in the league.
That's a realistic scenario, too. But that would be a cruel blow to expel UAB from a league they helped to create, and have remained a part of for 20 years.
I don't think they should be expelled, either. It doesn't really harm the other members to let UAB continue in the league.
If you fear that other schools might face that decision in the future (say enrollment drops or such) then you don't want to set the precedent.
(12-01-2014 03:50 PM)arkstfan Wrote: [ -> ] (12-01-2014 03:34 PM)Wedge Wrote: [ -> ]It doesn't really harm the other members to let UAB continue in the league.
If you fear that other schools might face that decision in the future (say enrollment drops or such) then you don't want to set the precedent.
A legitimate point, Arkst, but I think that possibility is incredibly remote.
Any other CUSA team skating on thin ice? If so you stay at 13. If not, You add Louisiana.
(12-01-2014 03:56 PM)TexanMark Wrote: [ -> ]Any other CUSA team skating on thin ice?
Haven't heard that from anybody. Of course, I hadn't heard about the UAB stuff until November, so…
Quote:If not, You add Louisiana.
C-USA fans seem genuinely divided on that issue. I freely admit that I don't know what would happen. My honest guess is that C-USA won't add another member from the Sportsman's Paradise as long as Tech is in the league. But we'll see how that goes.