(03-13-2015 08:25 AM)TheEagleWay Wrote:  Might not have a choice when this college bubble hits and costs will be front and center. Having regional affiliations will help athletics with this coming calamity.

Not trying to talk down to you when I say this (because I'm legitimately not), but you don't succeed by minimizing expenses... You succeed by maximizing revenue streams. Right now, the 2 best streams of revenue available are the "BCS" dollars and television contracts. So, teams are going to want to have the best competition in the league, and the best TV markets/marketshares it can get.

Now, I'm not arguing that CUSA's approach of going for big market teams only was wise, but that will have some bearing on most conference realignment. It will be adjusted (as it should) to who has the most eyes on the TVs, instead of who has the most TVs in their market.

(03-13-2015 09:00 AM)TheRevSWT Wrote:  

(03-13-2015 08:25 AM)TheEagleWay Wrote:  Might not have a choice when this college bubble hits and costs will be front and center. Having regional affiliations will help athletics with this coming calamity.

Not trying to talk down to you when I say this (because I'm legitimately not), but you don't succeed by minimizing expenses... You succeed by maximizing revenue streams. Right now, the 2 best streams of revenue available are the "BCS" dollars and television contracts. So, teams are going to want to have the best competition in the league, and the best TV markets/marketshares it can get.

Now, I'm not arguing that CUSA's approach of going for big market teams only was wise, but that will have some bearing on most conference realignment. It will be adjusted (as it should) to who has the most eyes on the TVs, instead of who has the most TVs in their market.

True but regionalization increases interest along with trimming expenses, especially at the G5 level. There are not any far flung teams in any of the G5 that get the fanbases fired up. We hear from G5 schools in Texas all the time that they need to have Texas schools in their conference because people care about those matchups. If that is true then it is true on a regional scale. I know our fans would be more interested in watching us play USM or SMU in person or on TV more than they would us playing Temple, FAU or SDSU.

I don't think C-USA has a bad strategy but it isn't working. They just need a couple of their schools to be big draws so that even if the big market teams suck the people in the market may tune in to see the popular opponent.

(03-13-2015 09:09 AM)Crump1 Wrote:  True but regionalization increases interest along with trimming expenses, especially at the G5 level. There are not any far flung teams in any of the G5 that get the fanbases fired up. We hear from G5 schools in Texas all the time that they need to have Texas schools in their conference because people care about those matchups. If that is true then it is true on a regional scale. I know our fans would be more interested in watching us play USM or SMU in person or on TV more than they would us playing Temple, FAU or SDSU.

You are right about the Texas school thing to an extent. You want a natural rival in state for Texas schools, but being in a solely Texas conference wouldn't be good either.

To me, you need to have a nice spread across multiple states and markets and have a product that is worth watching (to me, both are VERY important) to have a solid conference. We have in the Sun Belt what is a good start to that as really there's only one or two teams that don't play quality ball (except for Texas State that somehow manages to mix in both quality ball and absolutely horrendous ball in the same season). But that is a new creation for the Sun Belt, as it's been historically a down conference. CUSA has the markets, but they have to put a product on that is worth watching (and not to knock UTSA fans, but last year they did NOT have that).

Ideally, if there were no barriers and we had no problems, we'd drop Idaho, pick up a Texas team that has solid sports, and then work out a deal for a bowl in Texas. Throw in an eastern school to give App a close natural rival, and call it a day. That's not a bad spread across multiple states, good football, really good baseball, and we have basketball.

With the divisions, you are then able to "regionalize" even further to diminish travel expenses, while still having one quarter of the country (by size, not by states and that's just an estimate) covered with Sun Belt football.

(03-13-2015 09:00 AM)TheRevSWT Wrote:  

(03-13-2015 08:25 AM)TheEagleWay Wrote:  Might not have a choice when this college bubble hits and costs will be front and center. Having regional affiliations will help athletics with this coming calamity.

Not trying to talk down to you when I say this (because I'm legitimately not), but you don't succeed by minimizing expenses... You succeed by maximizing revenue streams. Right now, the 2 best streams of revenue available are the "BCS" dollars and television contracts. So, teams are going to want to have the best competition in the league, and the best TV markets/marketshares it can get.

Now, I'm not arguing that CUSA's approach of going for big market teams only was wise, but that will have some bearing on most conference realignment. It will be adjusted (as it should) to who has the most eyes on the TVs, instead of who has the most TVs in their market.

I'll un-box my first comment to give some clarity.

Typically, I do agree that maximizing revenue is a way to stay afloat.

However, I'd argue the revenue that G5's generate will not grow enough to counter-act what a college bubble can do. Unless the P5's give more of their pie (each of us get 1 million currently, which is pitiful) I don't think we can generate new revenue fast enough to keep up with the cut in subsidies most of us receive.

You might remember this link from a few years back, its a eye opening breakdown of revenue for institutions.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/co...54955804/1

College bubble will directly impact the subsidy portion of the revenue currently received by institutions.

College athletics for some institutions will need to learn how get lean with their business model or stop existing.

(03-13-2015 09:17 AM)TheRevSWT Wrote:  

(03-13-2015 09:09 AM)Crump1 Wrote:  True but regionalization increases interest along with trimming expenses, especially at the G5 level. There are not any far flung teams in any of the G5 that get the fanbases fired up. We hear from G5 schools in Texas all the time that they need to have Texas schools in their conference because people care about those matchups. If that is true then it is true on a regional scale. I know our fans would be more interested in watching us play USM or SMU in person or on TV more than they would us playing Temple, FAU or SDSU.

You are right about the Texas school thing to an extent. You want a natural rival in state for Texas schools, but being in a solely Texas conference wouldn't be good either.

To me, you need to have a nice spread across multiple states and markets and have a product that is worth watching (to me, both are VERY important) to have a solid conference. We have in the Sun Belt what is a good start to that as really there's only one or two teams that don't play quality ball (except for Texas State that somehow manages to mix in both quality ball and absolutely horrendous ball in the same season). But that is a new creation for the Sun Belt, as it's been historically a down conference. CUSA has the markets, but they have to put a product on that is worth watching (and not to knock UTSA fans, but last year they did NOT have that).

Ideally, if there were no barriers and we had no problems, we'd drop Idaho, pick up a Texas team that has solid sports, and then work out a deal for a bowl in Texas. Throw in an eastern school to give App a close natural rival, and call it a day. That's not a bad spread across multiple states, good football, really good baseball, and we have basketball.

With the divisions, you are then able to "regionalize" even further to diminish travel expenses, while still having one quarter of the country (by size, not by states and that's just an estimate) covered with Sun Belt football.

I think we are on the same page. That is why I support the going to 12 for football. I don't want to skip matchups against our closest conference opponents ever. I want to play App St. and Ga So just as much but if we have to skip a matchup every so often then let it be the ones furthest away.

Winning is obviously very important but some communities are just not big on football regardless of the level of success or conference brand.

(03-12-2015 01:57 PM)CAJUNNATION Wrote:  No way.

No way CUSA stays together in its current format beyond the next few years.

I'm calling it now.

One of 2 things will happen.

1) A few CUSA West schools join the MWC. CUSA kills the SBC.

2) All of CUSA West leaves with autobid intact and forms a new league with a select few other schools. CUSA kills the SBC.

Right now UNT for example is happy. For the first time since the Southland they have Texas schools in their league. That is a big deal and an improvement.

But I think it is becoming clear that the eastern half of CUSA has little interest in being affiliated with them.

Bankowsky wanted to go to 16 and couldn't get it, first time I can think of he's gone out public on an issue and didn't get the votes. He wanted two western teams to allow UAB to move into the cheaper eastern division and it got derailed by public demands that if CUSA goes to 16 by adding two that it include one eastern school.

Right now CUSA has 5 schools west of the Mississippi and likely 8 (presuming UAB expelled) east of the Mississippi. Massaro throws out Liberty and JMU. Pretty obvious looking at a map that the goal from his viewpoint is a tight grouping of MTSU, WKU, Marshall, Charlotte, ODU, and another Virginia school.

When NMSU came up for full membership everyone thought the votes were in place and WKU's president was able to convince enough presidents to switch that NMSU received a majority but not 75%. No reason to think he is any more inclined to add southwestern schools in CUSA.

This tension dates back to when ECU was in the league and their AD on several occasions advocated going to 16 so ECU wouldn't have to travel to Texas.

The league may surprise me and expand west but consider the math. If UAB is booted it requires 9 votes to expand. If USM votes with the east you need one defector from the west to approve expansion and La.Tech fans seem to indicate they are tightly aligned with USM, so if USM votes with the east, there is a possibility La.Tech joins that vote and CUSA can expand in the east without a single vote from UTEP, UNT, Rice or UTSA.

(03-12-2015 02:02 PM)Crump1 Wrote:  Someone admitting what some of us have said in the face of ignorance for years. TV sets in a market mean nothing if those sets never turn to a team in that market.

JMU most certainly wouldn't be a market addition. The city is smaller than Jonesboro and metro area the same.

(03-13-2015 11:59 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  The league may surprise me and expand west but consider the math. If UAB is booted it requires 9 votes to expand. If USM votes with the east you need one defector from the west to approve expansion and La.Tech fans seem to indicate they are tightly aligned with USM, so if USM votes with the east, there is a possibility La.Tech joins that vote and CUSA can expand in the east without a single vote from UTEP, UNT, Rice or UTSA.

Yes.

If I'm the AD at Rice, UNT, UTSA, or UTEP, I'm looking at the math and drawing up an exit strategy. Actually, I'm surprised they haven't bolted for the MWC already.


...and a CUSA minus Texas may make the eastern schools happy, but it is a much, much weaker league financially as a result.

(03-13-2015 01:54 PM)CAJUNNATION Wrote:  

(03-13-2015 11:59 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  The league may surprise me and expand west but consider the math. If UAB is booted it requires 9 votes to expand. If USM votes with the east you need one defector from the west to approve expansion and La.Tech fans seem to indicate they are tightly aligned with USM, so if USM votes with the east, there is a possibility La.Tech joins that vote and CUSA can expand in the east without a single vote from UTEP, UNT, Rice or UTSA.

Yes.

If I'm the AD at Rice, UNT, UTSA, or UTEP, I'm looking at the math and drawing up an exit strategy. Actually, I'm surprised they haven't bolted for the MWC already.


...and a CUSA minus Texas may make the eastern schools happy, but it is a much, much weaker league financially as a result.

Of those 4, I hear that UTEP is the most likely to go, they're so far west as to be an outlier anyway . . . Not sure that the other 3 have an interest in exiting CUSA at this time. If the politics break as you say, and it becomes obvious that they and their decisions/influence have become marginalized, then they may start looking for an exit. Just don't see it right now . . .

(03-13-2015 02:17 PM)Bobcat87 Wrote:  

(03-13-2015 01:54 PM)CAJUNNATION Wrote:  

(03-13-2015 11:59 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  The league may surprise me and expand west but consider the math. If UAB is booted it requires 9 votes to expand. If USM votes with the east you need one defector from the west to approve expansion and La.Tech fans seem to indicate they are tightly aligned with USM, so if USM votes with the east, there is a possibility La.Tech joins that vote and CUSA can expand in the east without a single vote from UTEP, UNT, Rice or UTSA.

Yes.

If I'm the AD at Rice, UNT, UTSA, or UTEP, I'm looking at the math and drawing up an exit strategy. Actually, I'm surprised they haven't bolted for the MWC already.


...and a CUSA minus Texas may make the eastern schools happy, but it is a much, much weaker league financially as a result.

Of those 4, I hear that UTEP is the most likely to go, they're so far west as to be an outlier anyway . . . Not sure that the other 3 have an interest in exiting CUSA at this time. If the politics break as you say, and it becomes obvious that they and their decisions/influence have become marginalized, then they may start looking for an exit. Just don't see it right now . . .

So UTEP, NMSU and Idaho to the MWC?

(03-13-2015 02:24 PM)FloridaJag Wrote:  

(03-13-2015 02:17 PM)Bobcat87 Wrote:  

(03-13-2015 01:54 PM)CAJUNNATION Wrote:  

(03-13-2015 11:59 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  The league may surprise me and expand west but consider the math. If UAB is booted it requires 9 votes to expand. If USM votes with the east you need one defector from the west to approve expansion and La.Tech fans seem to indicate they are tightly aligned with USM, so if USM votes with the east, there is a possibility La.Tech joins that vote and CUSA can expand in the east without a single vote from UTEP, UNT, Rice or UTSA.

Yes.

If I'm the AD at Rice, UNT, UTSA, or UTEP, I'm looking at the math and drawing up an exit strategy. Actually, I'm surprised they haven't bolted for the MWC already.


...and a CUSA minus Texas may make the eastern schools happy, but it is a much, much weaker league financially as a result.

Of those 4, I hear that UTEP is the most likely to go, they're so far west as to be an outlier anyway . . . Not sure that the other 3 have an interest in exiting CUSA at this time. If the politics break as you say, and it becomes obvious that they and their decisions/influence have become marginalized, then they may start looking for an exit. Just don't see it right now . . .

So UTEP, NMSU and Idaho to the MWC?

That I don't know, my crystal ball's muddled as to that scenario . . . I just don't see ALL the TX schools bolting from CUSA (at this time), as a previous poster suggested, JMO . . .

(03-13-2015 12:01 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(03-12-2015 02:02 PM)Crump1 Wrote:  Someone admitting what some of us have said in the face of ignorance for years. TV sets in a market mean nothing if those sets never turn to a team in that market.

JMU most certainly wouldn't be a market addition. The city is smaller than Jonesboro and metro area the same.

JMU has about 30,000 alumni who live in a 30 mile radius of the Washington, D.C. city center. That was attractive, along with their facilities, their academics and the fact that their FCS football program is pretty good.

It is always better to have a large TV market, but if the product on the field or court is not interesting, the TV ratings will not be there. If you live in New York, there must be a hundred better things to do than watch the Knicks play.

(03-13-2015 02:49 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(03-13-2015 12:01 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(03-12-2015 02:02 PM)Crump1 Wrote:  Someone admitting what some of us have said in the face of ignorance for years. TV sets in a market mean nothing if those sets never turn to a team in that market.

JMU most certainly wouldn't be a market addition. The city is smaller than Jonesboro and metro area the same.

JMU has about 30,000 alumni who live in a 30 mile radius of the Washington, D.C. city center. That was attractive, along with their facilities, their academics and the fact that their FCS football program is pretty good.

It is always better to have a large TV market, but if the product on the field or court is not interesting, the TV ratings will not be there. If you live in New York, there must be a hundred better things to do than watch the Knicks play.

30k. So if 100% of them tune into a JMU telecast it would draw a rating of 0.5 in the DC TV market.

(03-13-2015 09:11 AM)GE and MTS Wrote:  I don't think C-USA has a bad strategy but it isn't working. They just need a couple of their schools to be big draws so that even if the big market teams suck the people in the market may tune in to see the popular opponent.

When did we determine their strategy is not working. LOL.

They replaced schools that left that had decent brand and market recognition. It is going to take them a minute to recover especially with that number of move ups.

(03-13-2015 03:12 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(03-13-2015 02:49 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(03-13-2015 12:01 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(03-12-2015 02:02 PM)Crump1 Wrote:  Someone admitting what some of us have said in the face of ignorance for years. TV sets in a market mean nothing if those sets never turn to a team in that market.

JMU most certainly wouldn't be a market addition. The city is smaller than Jonesboro and metro area the same.

JMU has about 30,000 alumni who live in a 30 mile radius of the Washington, D.C. city center. That was attractive, along with their facilities, their academics and the fact that their FCS football program is pretty good.

It is always better to have a large TV market, but if the product on the field or court is not interesting, the TV ratings will not be there. If you live in New York, there must be a hundred better things to do than watch the Knicks play.

30k. So if 100% of them tune into a JMU telecast it would draw a rating of 0.5 in the DC TV market.

Assuming no other DC residents are interested

(03-13-2015 02:17 PM)Bobcat87 Wrote:  

(03-13-2015 01:54 PM)CAJUNNATION Wrote:  

(03-13-2015 11:59 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  The league may surprise me and expand west but consider the math. If UAB is booted it requires 9 votes to expand. If USM votes with the east you need one defector from the west to approve expansion and La.Tech fans seem to indicate they are tightly aligned with USM, so if USM votes with the east, there is a possibility La.Tech joins that vote and CUSA can expand in the east without a single vote from UTEP, UNT, Rice or UTSA.

Yes.

If I'm the AD at Rice, UNT, UTSA, or UTEP, I'm looking at the math and drawing up an exit strategy. Actually, I'm surprised they haven't bolted for the MWC already.


...and a CUSA minus Texas may make the eastern schools happy, but it is a much, much weaker league financially as a result.

Of those 4, I hear that UTEP is the most likely to go, they're so far west as to be an outlier anyway . . . Not sure that the other 3 have an interest in exiting CUSA at this time. If the politics break as you say, and it becomes obvious that they and their decisions/influence have become marginalized, then they may start looking for an exit. Just don't see it right now . . .

Rice would move to either MWC or AAC, with AAC as the first choice to rejoin with SMU, Houston, and Tulane. The admin is positioning the school for a move when options beomce available. I'd like to see Rice move with UTEP to the MWC.

we are going to find out how good or bad USA strategy is next year when their new tv deal is announced, I'm willing to bet they will not get as nearly a lucrative deal as their current tv contract.

(03-13-2015 04:14 PM)moehler Wrote:  we are going to find out how good or bad CUSA strategy is next year when their new tv deal is announced, I'm willing to bet they will not get as nearly a lucrative deal as their current tv contract.

Fixed it for you. USA does not have a their own TV contract.

(03-13-2015 04:14 PM)moehler Wrote:  we are going to find out how good or bad USA strategy is next year when their new tv deal is announced, I'm willing to bet they will not get as nearly a lucrative deal as their current tv contract.

You can look at their TV numbers, their attendance, their recruiting, etc. and see that it isn't making a difference. We have the same issues but evidence is mounting that the market strategy failed as expected.