CSNbbs

(03-08-2022 12:59 PM)AssKickingChicken Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-08-2022 12:25 PM)inutech Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-08-2022 12:14 PM)AssKickingChicken Wrote: [ -> ]I do think staying at nine for at least two or three years is a good idea. It gets us and Sam fully established into FBS and gets everyone a chance to know each other.

Also, NCAA credits divide better by 9 than by 12.

Especially in a one bid league. I’m not pushing for 12, but it would help with scheduling and give us a buffer if we get raided again.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Imagine how nicely things will divide up if/when we're getting multiple bids?

If 14 wasn't enough buffer, I'm over worrying about that kind of insurance.

Been thinking about how nicely those NCAA units will divide by 9.

Especially if we can get multiple bids (or some wins like NMSU got this year).

For 2022, each unit is worth $338,887. (This is paid out over 6 years, so $2,033,322 total.)

With 9 schools, that comes to $37,654.11 per school per unit per year, or $225,924.67 over 6 years.

Add a school, and the per-school unit drops to $33,888.70 per year, or $203,332.20 over 6 years.

Move to 12, and each unit only brings $28,240.58 per year, or $169,443.50 over 6 years.

So, adding 3 more schools would cost each 4.0 school just under $10K per unit per year.

(These numbers aren't exact, of course, since conferences can adjust their distribution to reward better teams. It's just an average.)

The current CFP contract pays $1M per school, up to 10 schools. So CUSA would increase its payout by adding a 10th school, but wouldn't gain anything after that. If CUSA moved to 12, the payout would fall to $833,333.33 per school, meaning those three additional schools would cost each 4.0 school about $166,666.67 in CFP payouts.

Add the two together, and moving to 12 from 9 would "cost" a minimum of $176,080.20 yearly, a "cost" which could go up if any team(s) advance in the NCAA Tournament.

The big questions are:

1) If CUSA moved to 12 teams and geographical divisions, how much would be saved on travel? (There'd certainly be some savings, but some schools would save more than others.)

2) Would the additional three schools improve the potential revenue from a media deal? If ESPN offers a 9-team conference a $500K package, but raises its offer to $600K for 12 teams, that's still a net loss per school of more than $5,000. Sadly, there don't appear to be any candidate schools who'd catch ESPN's eye enough to sweeten the deal much more than that.

Bottom line: Unless payouts change or a media package forces our hand, 9 appears to be the right number for now. It seems like this may have been said before...

I'm still baffled that people talk about ten teams for a football conference.

Anyone we take now will still be available in three years if need be. No need to expand for the sake of expanding.

(03-30-2022 09:09 PM)AssKickingChicken Wrote: [ -> ]Anyone we take now will still be available in three years if need be. No need to expand for the sake of expanding.

Exactly.

(03-30-2022 09:09 PM)AssKickingChicken Wrote: [ -> ]Anyone we take now will still be available in three years if need be. No need to expand for the sake of expanding.

Unless C-USA is losing another school.

(03-31-2022 10:37 AM)BeatWestern! Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-30-2022 09:09 PM)AssKickingChicken Wrote: [ -> ]Anyone we take now will still be available in three years if need be. No need to expand for the sake of expanding.

Unless C-USA is losing another school.

Why would that change anything?

If you lose one, you replace one. Then. At that time. When you need them.

(If you even want to - you can have an 8 member conference if you want, it'd be worth considering, depending on who left and what the options were for replacing them)

(03-31-2022 10:37 AM)BeatWestern! Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-30-2022 09:09 PM)AssKickingChicken Wrote: [ -> ]Anyone we take now will still be available in three years if need be. No need to expand for the sake of expanding.

Unless C-USA is losing another school.

Or pending what the WAC might attempt to do in terms of moving together. Possibly even the ASUN eventually. Now, any of those schools might still jump ship even if those things can happen (which is far from certain...the NCAA bylaws are a little fuzzy, and there would probably be lawsuits if it got that far).

Who knows. Either of those conferences could, at that point, ask members to sign GORs that might make a move cost prohibitive. It's unlikely, but a lot of things that have happened recently have been pretty unlikely.

To be clear...are any of the potential adds highly likely to still be available three years from now? Absolutely. But no conference can afford the hubris of assuming the status quo won't change some way in that amount of time.

(03-31-2022 11:01 AM)eku05 Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-31-2022 10:37 AM)BeatWestern! Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-30-2022 09:09 PM)AssKickingChicken Wrote: [ -> ]Anyone we take now will still be available in three years if need be. No need to expand for the sake of expanding.

Unless C-USA is losing another school.

Or pending what the WAC might attempt to do in terms of moving together. Possibly even the ASUN eventually. Now, any of those schools might still jump ship even if those things can happen (which is far from certain...the NCAA bylaws are a little fuzzy, and there would probably be lawsuits if it got that far).

Who knows. Either of those conferences could, at that point, ask members to sign GORs that might make a move cost prohibitive. It's unlikely, but a lot of things that have happened recently have been pretty unlikely.

To be clear...are any of the potential adds highly likely to still be available three years from now? Absolutely. But no conference can afford the hubris of assuming the status quo won't change some way in that amount of time.

The motivations may be a little different if you're CUSA staff vs. the schools that make up the conference.

As you say, the status quo will likely change - so why give up money now when you don't have to when you might not be in the conference to see any long term payoff anyway? And don't even want to be.

(03-31-2022 12:27 PM)inutech Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-31-2022 11:01 AM)eku05 Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-31-2022 10:37 AM)BeatWestern! Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-30-2022 09:09 PM)AssKickingChicken Wrote: [ -> ]Anyone we take now will still be available in three years if need be. No need to expand for the sake of expanding.

Unless C-USA is losing another school.

Or pending what the WAC might attempt to do in terms of moving together. Possibly even the ASUN eventually. Now, any of those schools might still jump ship even if those things can happen (which is far from certain...the NCAA bylaws are a little fuzzy, and there would probably be lawsuits if it got that far).

Who knows. Either of those conferences could, at that point, ask members to sign GORs that might make a move cost prohibitive. It's unlikely, but a lot of things that have happened recently have been pretty unlikely.

To be clear...are any of the potential adds highly likely to still be available three years from now? Absolutely. But no conference can afford the hubris of assuming the status quo won't change some way in that amount of time.

The motivations may be a little different if you're CUSA staff vs. the schools that make up the conference.

As you say, the status quo will likely change - so why give up money now when you don't have to when you might not be in the conference to see any long term payoff anyway? And don't even want to be.

The CUSA staff can't add without the consent of the schools. The current schools will decide.

(03-31-2022 03:31 PM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-31-2022 12:27 PM)inutech Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-31-2022 11:01 AM)eku05 Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-31-2022 10:37 AM)BeatWestern! Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-30-2022 09:09 PM)AssKickingChicken Wrote: [ -> ]Anyone we take now will still be available in three years if need be. No need to expand for the sake of expanding.

Unless C-USA is losing another school.

Or pending what the WAC might attempt to do in terms of moving together. Possibly even the ASUN eventually. Now, any of those schools might still jump ship even if those things can happen (which is far from certain...the NCAA bylaws are a little fuzzy, and there would probably be lawsuits if it got that far).

Who knows. Either of those conferences could, at that point, ask members to sign GORs that might make a move cost prohibitive. It's unlikely, but a lot of things that have happened recently have been pretty unlikely.

To be clear...are any of the potential adds highly likely to still be available three years from now? Absolutely. But no conference can afford the hubris of assuming the status quo won't change some way in that amount of time.

The motivations may be a little different if you're CUSA staff vs. the schools that make up the conference.

As you say, the status quo will likely change - so why give up money now when you don't have to when you might not be in the conference to see any long term payoff anyway? And don't even want to be.

The CUSA staff can't add without the consent of the schools. The current schools will decide.

True.

But that doesn't mean they'd always have the same interests.

(03-31-2022 09:00 PM)inutech Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-31-2022 03:31 PM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-31-2022 12:27 PM)inutech Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-31-2022 11:01 AM)eku05 Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-31-2022 10:37 AM)BeatWestern! Wrote: [ -> ]Unless C-USA is losing another school.

Or pending what the WAC might attempt to do in terms of moving together. Possibly even the ASUN eventually. Now, any of those schools might still jump ship even if those things can happen (which is far from certain...the NCAA bylaws are a little fuzzy, and there would probably be lawsuits if it got that far).

Who knows. Either of those conferences could, at that point, ask members to sign GORs that might make a move cost prohibitive. It's unlikely, but a lot of things that have happened recently have been pretty unlikely.

To be clear...are any of the potential adds highly likely to still be available three years from now? Absolutely. But no conference can afford the hubris of assuming the status quo won't change some way in that amount of time.

The motivations may be a little different if you're CUSA staff vs. the schools that make up the conference.

As you say, the status quo will likely change - so why give up money now when you don't have to when you might not be in the conference to see any long term payoff anyway? And don't even want to be.

The CUSA staff can't add without the consent of the schools. The current schools will decide.

True.

But that doesn't mean they'd always have the same interests.

No they don't but that's a conference for ya. Now if LSU were to join we would say how high when they said jump. We just don't have a big brand that everyone else will fall in line behind.

(03-31-2022 10:10 PM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-31-2022 09:00 PM)inutech Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-31-2022 03:31 PM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote: [ -> ]The CUSA staff can't add without the consent of the schools. The current schools will decide.

True.

But that doesn't mean they'd always have the same interests.

No they don't but that's a conference for ya. Now if LSU were to join we would say how high when they said jump. We just don't have a big brand that everyone else will fall in line behind.

I do think sometimes it's an issue when the conference leadership is pushing a different agenda than most of the members. The jumbo WAC might be an example of this.

For us, it's a conflict (potentially) of expansion for the purpose of protecting the existence of the conference vs maximum benefits for the members (like, if the last 5 teams had found other homes during this last round the conference dissolved, that would have been bad for the staff at HQ, but every school would have been ok with it).

Correct. It could easily be G4 right now-- but GREED and revenge got in the way.

I'm more convinced than ever that 8 >>>> 10 (and that 9 is much better than both, but if one team left I hope they'd consider sticking with 8).

Maybe 20 or 30? Nick Saban recently said he thinks the top college football teams will soon be competing in an NFL-style league with 60 teams in two or three megaconferences.

https://www.saturdaydownsouth.com/alabam...-rolls-on/

Phooey!

(03-22-2022 08:45 AM)inutech Wrote: [ -> ]Been thinking about how nicely those NCAA units will divide by 9.

Especially if we can get multiple bids (or some wins like NMSU got this year).

Agreed. Here is where I worked out some number last year. Below are CFP payouts (I forgot what year this data is from), not NCAA credits, but the increased payout per team with less mouths to feed remains the same.

14 teams is ideal for the new landscape in Men's football and Basketball.