Sure makes those trips to Texas and Louisiana seem even more silly.
(01-12-2016 01:29 PM)Murray007 Wrote: [ -> ]http://pilotonline.com/sports/college/ol...bcc60.html
Less TV money than before, by a significant margin. What happens from here?
CUSA is a mess. I have to believe it is going to blow up, probably with some other conferences, in the not too distant future.
Realignment will be inevitable with this. Outside of removing two schools to improve revenue/travel, I don't see how this league improves competitively or financially.
I do think C-USA will eventually become 2 regional conferences. Might even blow up the Sun Belt when it happens.
I think a lot of this is "premature speculation"
(01-12-2016 10:07 PM)TedHead Wrote: [ -> ]I think a lot of this is "premature speculation"
This ...on this thread.
We all knew this was coming. After the implosion of the Big East, and the creation of the AAC from much of old CUSA this was inevitable.
NO ONE should be even mildly surprised.
(01-13-2016 12:07 AM)Razor Ramon Monarch Wrote: [ -> ]Reality bites.
Well, IMO we[CUSA] came out of this pretty well. I expected much worse.
We lost high profile markets and historic storied programs, and replaced them with schools from the SBC that had negotiated a media contract that currently nets a whopping $100,000/yr per school for it's members
We will still see around $670,000/yr, the same as the MVC.
Compare that with the $100,000/ yr of the SBC and $0 with the CAA.
So the TV money will decrease by about $500k per year, with an annual athletic budget of about $41M per year, according to the Pilot's report. If I told you that the budget will take a hit of 1.2%, that would be cause for concern, but nobody would be jumping off of bridges over 1.2%.
C-USA is far from ideal, but I still think it's a good place for us to be. Basketball across the conference is weak this year, but the history of some of the programs (UAB, WKU, ODU) says that C-USA basketball will be better in the future.
As for football, just last year, when the CFP money was dispersed, the G5 conferences were ranked. The order was: MWC, C-USA, AAC, MAC and SB. Marshal's top 25 appearance was good for the whole conference, not to mention the success of C-USA teams in bowl games. This year, the AAC had 3 teams in the top 25, C-USA had none, so our ranking will probably drop to 4th. But I think that C-USA is positioned to be competitive with the other G5 conferences.
A break-up of C-USA into more regional conferences will only occur if the perception is that its members will be better off. A conference with a small geographic footprint would reduce travel costs, but would have less appeal to TV networks. The reason conferences have become so large is that they cover more states and large metro areas, and this is especially important to C-USA, whose members have less name recognition than the big-time programs (nobody cares that OU is located in a small town, since they have a huge following all over Oklahoma and nationally). I don't see anything really challenging the "bigger is better" model of conference alignment.
(01-13-2016 12:51 PM)Sidewinder Wrote: [ -> ]So the TV money will decrease by about $500k per year, with an annual athletic budget of about $41M per year, according to the Pilot's report. If I told you that the budget will take a hit of 1.2%, that would be cause for concern, but nobody would be jumping off of bridges over 1.2%.
C-USA is far from ideal, but I still think it's a good place for us to be. Basketball across the conference is weak this year, but the history of some of the programs (UAB, WKU, ODU) says that C-USA basketball will be better in the future.
As for football, just last year, when the CFP money was dispersed, the G5 conferences were ranked. The order was: MWC, C-USA, AAC, MAC and SB. Marshal's top 25 appearance was good for the whole conference, not to mention the success of C-USA teams in bowl games. This year, the AAC had 3 teams in the top 25, C-USA had none, so our ranking will probably drop to 4th. But I think that C-USA is positioned to be competitive with the other G5 conferences.
A break-up of C-USA into more regional conferences will only occur if the perception is that its members will be better off. A conference with a small geographic footprint would reduce travel costs, but would have less appeal to TV networks. The reason conferences have become so large is that they cover more states and large metro areas, and this is especially important to C-USA, whose members have less name recognition than the big-time programs (nobody cares that OU is located in a small town, since they have a huge following all over Oklahoma and nationally). I don't see anything really challenging the "bigger is better" model of conference alignment.
Yes indeed!
Time for pure speculation!
A conference lineup of ODU, Marshall, WKU, MTSU, UAB, Charlotte, App State, Georgia State and Georgia Southern gets you a combination of teams with name recognition, highly populated metro areas and regional rivalries. Not sure if that conference would have a good perception though, seeing how it's biggest names would be Marshall, Georgia Southern and UAB.
(01-13-2016 01:10 PM)Blue_Trombone Wrote: [ -> ]Time for pure speculation!
A conference lineup of ODU, Marshall, WKU, MTSU, UAB, Charlotte, App State, Georgia State and Georgia Southern gets you a combination of teams with name recognition, highly populated metro areas and regional rivalries. Not sure if that conference would have a good perception though, seeing how it's biggest names would be Marshall, Georgia Southern and UAB.
I'd add jmu to that and we'd have a nice 10 team conference.
I'd prefer ecu, but I doubt they would want to move down.
(01-13-2016 03:01 PM)Razor Ramon Monarch Wrote: [ -> ] (01-13-2016 01:10 PM)Blue_Trombone Wrote: [ -> ]Time for pure speculation!
A conference lineup of ODU, Marshall, WKU, MTSU, UAB, Charlotte, App State, Georgia State and Georgia Southern gets you a combination of teams with name recognition, highly populated metro areas and regional rivalries. Not sure if that conference would have a good perception though, seeing how it's biggest names would be Marshall, Georgia Southern and UAB.
I'd add jmu to that and we'd have a nice 10 team conference.
I'd prefer ecu, but I doubt they would want to move down.
FJMU...we tried to help those idiots before! Let them sit in the Valley and rot !!
(01-13-2016 12:51 PM)Sidewinder Wrote: [ -> ]So the TV money will decrease by about $500k per year, with an annual athletic budget of about $41M per year, according to the Pilot's report. If I told you that the budget will take a hit of 1.2%, that would be cause for concern, but nobody would be jumping off of bridges over 1.2%.
C-USA is far from ideal, but I still think it's a good place for us to be. Basketball across the conference is weak this year, but the history of some of the programs (UAB, WKU, ODU) says that C-USA basketball will be better in the future.
As for football, just last year, when the CFP money was dispersed, the G5 conferences were ranked. The order was: MWC, C-USA, AAC, MAC and SB. Marshal's top 25 appearance was good for the whole conference, not to mention the success of C-USA teams in bowl games. This year, the AAC had 3 teams in the top 25, C-USA had none, so our ranking will probably drop to 4th. But I think that C-USA is positioned to be competitive with the other G5 conferences.
A break-up of C-USA into more regional conferences will only occur if the perception is that its members will be better off. A conference with a small geographic footprint would reduce travel costs, but would have less appeal to TV networks. The reason conferences have become so large is that they cover more states and large metro areas, and this is especially important to C-USA, whose members have less name recognition than the big-time programs (nobody cares that OU is located in a small town, since they have a huge following all over Oklahoma and nationally). I don't see anything really challenging the "bigger is better" model of conference alignment.
This type of reasonable post isn't welcome here.
(01-13-2016 12:51 PM)Sidewinder Wrote: [ -> ]So the TV money will decrease by about $500k per year, with an annual athletic budget of about $41M per year, according to the Pilot's report. If I told you that the budget will take a hit of 1.2%, that would be cause for concern, but nobody would be jumping off of bridges over 1.2%.
C-USA is far from ideal, but I still think it's a good place for us to be. Basketball across the conference is weak this year, but the history of some of the programs (UAB, WKU, ODU) says that C-USA basketball will be better in the future.
As for football, just last year, when the CFP money was dispersed, the G5 conferences were ranked. The order was: MWC, C-USA, AAC, MAC and SB. Marshal's top 25 appearance was good for the whole conference, not to mention the success of C-USA teams in bowl games. This year, the AAC had 3 teams in the top 25, C-USA had none, so our ranking will probably drop to 4th. But I think that C-USA is positioned to be competitive with the other G5 conferences.
A break-up of C-USA into more regional conferences will only occur if the perception is that its members will be better off. A conference with a small geographic footprint would reduce travel costs, but would have less appeal to TV networks. The reason conferences have become so large is that they cover more states and large metro areas, and this is especially important to C-USA, whose members have less name recognition than the big-time programs (nobody cares that OU is located in a small town, since they have a huge following all over Oklahoma and nationally). I don't see anything really challenging the "bigger is better" model of conference alignment.
Actually WKU finished 24 in the AP. ...for what that's worth.
Maybe they'll hang a banner.
(01-13-2016 10:18 PM)Razor Ramon Monarch Wrote: [ -> ]Maybe they'll hang a banner.
Ha! I see what you did there!