From another thread:

(05-27-2014 10:13 AM)Bearcat2012 Wrote:  Dan Wolken ‏@DanWolken 21m
AAC meetings start tonight. Aresco has said every school in that league will do COA, but we’ll see. That could be a big dividing line.


Dan Wolken ‏@DanWolken 20m
If we get into a situation where some schools do and some school’s don’t within a given league, that will be really interesting.

So... let's say only some of the MWC and some of the AAC is willing to do FCOA.... Do those teams merge for a new conference, or do they just play within their current conferences with huge recruiting advantages?

(05-27-2014 10:20 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(05-27-2014 08:18 AM)stever20 Wrote:  He's delusional in thinking the money won't be a major factor. Of course it will- money will be a huge factor. I mean- let's say Tulane is offering the FCOA and Southern Miss is not. Tulane has a HUGE advantage there in that situation. For those that aren't offering the FCOA- they are going to get even less of the scraps than before.

I would not call him delusional. There is something to his argument. The simple fact is most of those schools already have built in advantages over schools "below" them in stature anyway. Kids (typically) tend to choose those types of schools first. Unless the scholarship limits change, the hierarchy will still be very similar. Now there will be a few differences, the higher rated recruit that stays home at a smaller school may go away. But by and large, you won't see too many dramatic shifts for most of the have-nots, he little guys if you will.

The biggest difference will be that the lower end P5 schools will get more players that normally go to the higher-end G5 schools. Meaning the schools hurt the MOST by this, are not MAC and Sunbelt types, who mostly will get the same level of recruits with maybe one exception per class. But any AAC, MWC, and C-USA school that choose not to fully participate, they will be the ones who are cannibalized.

I wouldn't throw the C-USA in there at all. like it or not- they are basically Sun Belt now.

Also if some of the P5 lower end schools get some guys that normally go to higher-end G5 schools- wouldn't it stand to reason then that the top guys that would go to the middle/lower end G5 schools- would now then go to the higher end G5 schools? Crap rolls downhill. Also, where before a school like a Southern Miss would get a guy over Tulane- now, if Tulane is offering the FCOA and USM isn't- that's going to shift things pretty signifigantly in Tulane's favor.

(05-27-2014 09:27 AM)kmfloyd Wrote:  But wasn't the answer to that question answered when the schools thought they'd be getting a much bigger TV deal? While no one has come out and said it, the economics just aren't the same anymore. Many schools are going to have to reevaluate if all of this is worth it.

that's what happened in 1978. If you look at # of teams in D1-A-
1978 138
1979 140 UConn/E Tenn St added
1980 138 UConn/Northwestern St drops
1981 137 Villanova drops
1982 113 Colgate/Holy Cross/NE Louisiana, Ivy, Southland, Southern drop
1983 112 North Texas Drops
1984 110 Richmond/William & Mary drop
1986 105 Drake/Ill St/Ind St/So Illinois/West Texas St drop

I'd kind of guess we're going to see the exact same thing here. However, as happened before- by 1989, teams started getting added(up to 107).

(05-27-2014 09:37 AM)bearcatlawjd Wrote:  Schools like UC have a budget over a billion dollars. At the end of the day these schools will find the money to compete.

Just looking at the numbers from 2012 UC spent more than they earned.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/s.../finances/

Total Revenue = $48,892,291
Total Expenses = $49,868,204

not sure if this from all athletic teams at UC.

(05-27-2014 10:28 AM)Chappy Wrote:  From another thread:

(05-27-2014 10:13 AM)Bearcat2012 Wrote:  Dan Wolken ‏@DanWolken 21m
AAC meetings start tonight. Aresco has said every school in that league will do COA, but we’ll see. That could be a big dividing line.


Dan Wolken ‏@DanWolken 20m
If we get into a situation where some schools do and some school’s don’t within a given league, that will be really interesting.

So... let's say only some of the MWC and some of the AAC is willing to do FCOA.... Do those teams merge for a new conference, or do they just play within their current conferences with huge recruiting advantages?

We play in our current conferences with the advantages.

(05-27-2014 11:01 AM)kellernr Wrote:  

(05-27-2014 09:37 AM)bearcatlawjd Wrote:  Schools like UC have a budget over a billion dollars. At the end of the day these schools will find the money to compete.

Just looking at the numbers from 2012 UC spent more than they earned.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/s.../finances/

Total Revenue = $48,892,291
Total Expenses = $49,868,204

not sure if this from all athletic teams at UC.

That $48 million includes extra exit fee income that will go away in 5 years.

(05-26-2014 07:46 PM)Tigers2B1 Wrote:  

(05-26-2014 05:04 PM)BigHouston Wrote:  MWC members are feeling the pressure and it hasn't even begun yet... I see the AAC approaching those 4 from the MWC who can swim and make the AAC a 16 member conference.

So the theory here is that everyone in the AAC can 'pay' up and will? If you take a look at athletic budgets of some AAC schools the answer may not be that clear.

If I looked at the Athletic Revenue chart correctly, ECU & Houston are last with revenue around $35/36mil. Utah is the last P5, right around $41mil.

I think we'll be fine. At worse we would have to cut a sport, and I am sure Houston would do that as well.

(05-27-2014 11:06 AM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  

(05-27-2014 11:01 AM)kellernr Wrote:  

(05-27-2014 09:37 AM)bearcatlawjd Wrote:  Schools like UC have a budget over a billion dollars. At the end of the day these schools will find the money to compete.

Just looking at the numbers from 2012 UC spent more than they earned.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/s.../finances/

Total Revenue = $48,892,291
Total Expenses = $49,868,204

not sure if this from all athletic teams at UC.

That $48 million includes extra exit fee income that will go away in 5 years.

don't think much of that would have been included in the '12-'13 school year quite frankly. Maybe some of the WVU money, but that's it.

(05-27-2014 11:04 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(05-27-2014 10:28 AM)Chappy Wrote:  From another thread:

(05-27-2014 10:13 AM)Bearcat2012 Wrote:  Dan Wolken ‏@DanWolken 21m
AAC meetings start tonight. Aresco has said every school in that league will do COA, but we’ll see. That could be a big dividing line.


Dan Wolken ‏@DanWolken 20m
If we get into a situation where some schools do and some school’s don’t within a given league, that will be really interesting.

So... let's say only some of the MWC and some of the AAC is willing to do FCOA.... Do those teams merge for a new conference, or do they just play within their current conferences with huge recruiting advantages?

We play in our current conferences with the advantages.

I think that depends. If all the AAC teams pay stipends only half the MW pays stipends---you will see the MW champ lose out to the AAC champ on SOS issue due to the MW being so soft.

(05-27-2014 11:16 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(05-27-2014 11:06 AM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  

(05-27-2014 11:01 AM)kellernr Wrote:  

(05-27-2014 09:37 AM)bearcatlawjd Wrote:  Schools like UC have a budget over a billion dollars. At the end of the day these schools will find the money to compete.

Just looking at the numbers from 2012 UC spent more than they earned.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/s.../finances/

Total Revenue = $48,892,291
Total Expenses = $49,868,204

not sure if this from all athletic teams at UC.

That $48 million includes extra exit fee income that will go away in 5 years.

don't think much of that would have been included in the '12-'13 school year quite frankly. Maybe some of the WVU money, but that's it.

Well, still the comment above about UC having billions of dollars isn't true.

(05-27-2014 10:28 AM)Chappy Wrote:  From another thread:

(05-27-2014 10:13 AM)Bearcat2012 Wrote:  Dan Wolken ‏@DanWolken 21m
AAC meetings start tonight. Aresco has said every school in that league will do COA, but we’ll see. That could be a big dividing line.


Dan Wolken ‏@DanWolken 20m
If we get into a situation where some schools do and some school’s don’t within a given league, that will be really interesting.

So... let's say only some of the MWC and some of the AAC is willing to do FCOA.... Do those teams merge for a new conference, or do they just play within their current conferences with huge recruiting advantages?

No one in the AAC is leaving and forfeiting the "war chest".

(05-27-2014 10:38 AM)stever20 Wrote:  I wouldn't throw the C-USA in there at all. like it or not- they are basically Sun Belt now.

I'm referring to the holdovers. Southern Miss, UAB, etc. that would get a couple of BCS level players who wanted to stay home.

(05-27-2014 10:38 AM)stever20 Wrote:  Also if some of the P5 lower end schools get some guys that normally go to higher-end G5 schools- wouldn't it stand to reason then that the top guys that would go to the middle/lower end G5 schools- would now then go to the higher end G5 schools?

Two different animals. I am referring to the 1-2 players per year some of those schools sign that normally would go to BCS schools but chose to stay home. Not large numbers of teams. Not to be confused with highly ranked players that don't have BCS offers. There are always exceptions to the rules, but by and large players who end up at Sunbelt/MAC schools end up there moreso due to lack of better options (not always talent related though).

Now to your point, I think one HUGE difference might be transfer pipelines. Other than a QB who needs to go somewhere to get on the field (only one playing position), I have a hard time seeing players leaving getting paid to choose to not get paid, unless they have no option.

I still love the people that think because the school has a huge endowment that they have plenty of money for athletics. Endowments can't be used towards the athletic budget if I remember correctly

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

(05-27-2014 09:35 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-27-2014 09:27 AM)kmfloyd Wrote:  But wasn't the answer to that question answered when the schools thought they'd be getting a much bigger TV deal? While no one has come out and said it, the economics just aren't the same anymore. Many schools are going to have to reevaluate if all of this is worth it.

It's easy for schools to thump their chest and say "we'll do whatever it takes!" when they don't actually have to DO it yet. Boise was "fully committed" to competing at the highest level when they thought they were going to be getting $8m - $10m in Big East media money. Now, it will be much harder, as their President has admitted.

I am skeptical about everyone in the G5 who says they will match whatever the P5 does. We will know for sure when these proposals are actually enacted.

On the one hand, the point is valid that it's easier to SAY you're going to do what it takes than it is to PAY to do what it takes.

On the other hand, if SWAC or Southland schools like Texas Southern are looking at coming up with the money for stipends, I expect that schools like North Texas will be able to come up with the money.

""When it comes to stipends, TSU is poised to be on that side if it comes about. We will have the wherewithal to raise the extra million dollars to do that. We are in the middle of Houston. We can generate that kind of revenue." http://www.houstonchronicle.com/sports/c...311.php#/0

It's possible that the ever-increasing costs drive a few schools out of FBS--the usual suspects would be Idaho, SJSU, ULM--but I have to think that if Houston Baptist is looking at the new expenses and saying "How do we squeeze this out of our budget" instead of "that's just not something we're capable of doing" then I think Wyoming and Southern Miss and UAB and Utah State and Middle Tennessee and App State will find the money in the couch cushions somewhere.

(05-27-2014 11:17 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-27-2014 11:04 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(05-27-2014 10:28 AM)Chappy Wrote:  From another thread:

(05-27-2014 10:13 AM)Bearcat2012 Wrote:  Dan Wolken ‏@DanWolken 21m
AAC meetings start tonight. Aresco has said every school in that league will do COA, but we’ll see. That could be a big dividing line.


Dan Wolken ‏@DanWolken 20m
If we get into a situation where some schools do and some school’s don’t within a given league, that will be really interesting.

So... let's say only some of the MWC and some of the AAC is willing to do FCOA.... Do those teams merge for a new conference, or do they just play within their current conferences with huge recruiting advantages?

We play in our current conferences with the advantages.

I think that depends. If all the AAC teams pay stipends only half the MW pays stipends---you will see the MW champ lose out to the AAC champ on SOS issue due to the MW being so soft.

You assuming way to much that those schools who don't pay a stipend won't be competitive. So if Vandy offers a stipend and Alabama doesn't, that will make Alabama soft?

(05-27-2014 11:22 AM)kellernr Wrote:  I still love the people that think because the school has a huge endowment that they have plenty of money for athletics. Endowments can't be used towards the athletic budget if I remember correctly

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

The assumption is that their alumni are rich enough to support increased athletics spending. 2 flaws in that thinking - Tulsa, Tulane and SMU are spending roughly the same amount as everybody else in this conference (ie, G5 level spending) and that endowment money is really high b/c of compounding interest... in other words a lot of it is "old money" and doesn't necessarily reflect current donations.

(05-26-2014 05:04 PM)BigHouston Wrote:  MWC members are feeling the pressure and it hasn't even begun yet... I see the AAC approaching those 4 from the MWC who can swim and make the AAC a 16 member conference.

Which four?

(05-27-2014 11:25 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(05-27-2014 11:17 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-27-2014 11:04 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(05-27-2014 10:28 AM)Chappy Wrote:  From another thread:

(05-27-2014 10:13 AM)Bearcat2012 Wrote:  Dan Wolken ‏@DanWolken 21m
AAC meetings start tonight. Aresco has said every school in that league will do COA, but we’ll see. That could be a big dividing line.


Dan Wolken ‏@DanWolken 20m
If we get into a situation where some schools do and some school’s don’t within a given league, that will be really interesting.

So... let's say only some of the MWC and some of the AAC is willing to do FCOA.... Do those teams merge for a new conference, or do they just play within their current conferences with huge recruiting advantages?

We play in our current conferences with the advantages.

I think that depends. If all the AAC teams pay stipends only half the MW pays stipends---you will see the MW champ lose out to the AAC champ on SOS issue due to the MW being so soft.

You assuming way to much that those schools who don't pay a stipend won't be competitive. So if Vandy offers a stipend and Alabama doesn't, that will make Alabama soft?

Certainly you are not suggesting that the Mountain West schools are like Alabama. There is not a single Mountain West team that has anything close to Alabama's swag. More to your point, yeah, if Alabama wasn't offering a stipend and the other rest of the SEC was, then yes, I would expect the rest of the SEC close that recruiting gap. Half the MW schools are already not very competitive. The "stipend divide" would turn them into Idaho's. I could easily see the top half of the MW defect as a group to the AAC. The AAC would be a huge 16-18 national conference where every team paid the stipend. It would be unlike any other G5 conference in that respect and would dominate the G5 CFP bowl slot. During the next contract cycle it would likely become the highest paid G5 by a significant margin---probably at least 5 million a team. Which would pay for all the stipend costs and more.

(05-27-2014 11:22 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(05-27-2014 10:38 AM)stever20 Wrote:  I wouldn't throw the C-USA in there at all. like it or not- they are basically Sun Belt now.

I'm referring to the holdovers. Southern Miss, UAB, etc. that would get a couple of BCS level players who wanted to stay home.

(05-27-2014 10:38 AM)stever20 Wrote:  Also if some of the P5 lower end schools get some guys that normally go to higher-end G5 schools- wouldn't it stand to reason then that the top guys that would go to the middle/lower end G5 schools- would now then go to the higher end G5 schools?

Two different animals. I am referring to the 1-2 players per year some of those schools sign that normally would go to BCS schools but chose to stay home. Not large numbers of teams. Not to be confused with highly ranked players that don't have BCS offers. There are always exceptions to the rules, but by and large players who end up at Sunbelt/MAC schools end up there moreso due to lack of better options (not always talent related though).

Now to your point, I think one HUGE difference might be transfer pipelines. Other than a QB who needs to go somewhere to get on the field (only one playing position), I have a hard time seeing players leaving getting paid to choose to not get paid, unless they have no option.

The problem for Southern Miss/UAB now though will be that if they aren't paying the FCOA, and a school like Tulane is- those guys would start going to Tulane over Southern Miss/UAB and still get to stay close to home. I see Southern Miss, UAB really struggling quite frankly- especially if they don't get the FCOA for them. Memphis and Tulane are really going to impact them big time.

totally agree with you on the transfers. I just think it's going to be like that even with the initial enrollments. If a kid is looking at 2 schools- 1 school gets paid at 1 not- the poor kids will choose the paid option 100 of 100 times.

(05-27-2014 11:38 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(05-27-2014 11:22 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(05-27-2014 10:38 AM)stever20 Wrote:  I wouldn't throw the C-USA in there at all. like it or not- they are basically Sun Belt now.

I'm referring to the holdovers. Southern Miss, UAB, etc. that would get a couple of BCS level players who wanted to stay home.

(05-27-2014 10:38 AM)stever20 Wrote:  Also if some of the P5 lower end schools get some guys that normally go to higher-end G5 schools- wouldn't it stand to reason then that the top guys that would go to the middle/lower end G5 schools- would now then go to the higher end G5 schools?

Two different animals. I am referring to the 1-2 players per year some of those schools sign that normally would go to BCS schools but chose to stay home. Not large numbers of teams. Not to be confused with highly ranked players that don't have BCS offers. There are always exceptions to the rules, but by and large players who end up at Sunbelt/MAC schools end up there moreso due to lack of better options (not always talent related though).

Now to your point, I think one HUGE difference might be transfer pipelines. Other than a QB who needs to go somewhere to get on the field (only one playing position), I have a hard time seeing players leaving getting paid to choose to not get paid, unless they have no option.

The problem for Southern Miss/UAB now though will be that if they aren't paying the FCOA, and a school like Tulane is- those guys would start going to Tulane over Southern Miss/UAB and still get to stay close to home. I see Southern Miss, UAB really struggling quite frankly- especially if they don't get the FCOA for them. Memphis and Tulane are really going to impact them big time.

totally agree with you on the transfers. I just think it's going to be like that even with the initial enrollments. If a kid is looking at 2 schools- 1 school gets paid at 1 not- the poor kids will choose the paid option 100 of 100 times.

What you will more than likely see is more schools loading up on non-qualifiers just like Marshall currently does. Last year the B10 commissioner addressed this very issue and in the future we will probably see some movement by the P5 to allow them to get kids that end up being nonqualifiers.