(05-09-2016 12:40 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(05-09-2016 12:12 PM)FoUTASportscaster Wrote:  Since you are too lazy to click on a link that would contradict your point, I'll try to spell it out.

NCAA distribution for 2014/15:
ULM: 897,088
ULL:1,295,517
LTU: 1,155,812

Conference distribution
ULM: 1,372,981
ULL: 1,050,000
LTU: 1,422,273

Royalties, licensing, advertisements, and sponsorships
ULM: 170,457
ULL: 948,931
LTU: 290,213

Media rights
ULM: 0
ULL: 43,070
LTU: 1,010,717

Total
ULM: 2,440,526
ULL: 3,337,518
LTU: 3,879,015

Were it not for the media rights, ULL would have been ahead and ULM would have been even. That is as close to an apples-to-apples comparison as you'll ever find.

Those number validate the numbers I posted from USA Today... so what is your point?

You are looking at a CUSA school that is listed next to last in the conference vs a school that is listed 2nd in the SBC .....

So if you believe those numbers (they are off but not by much) then all the numbers are correct. It means that each and every former SBC schools has increased their dollars by millions since joining CUSA.

But what it also shows....the SBC has ZERO VALUE....ZERO ZERO ZERO to it's members as far as a dollar amount for the SBC TV contract with espn.

ULM list...ZERO and I assume ULL's is from local ads since it's under 50k

Take the million from each of those former SBC and we are still talking about a HUGE difference since joining CUSA

That when the CUSA contract goes FROM PAYING MILLIONS TO HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS PER SCHOOL, THERE WILL NO LONGER BE A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE CONFERENCE PAYOUTS.

Better?

(05-09-2016 01:18 PM)FoUTASportscaster Wrote:  

(05-09-2016 12:40 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(05-09-2016 12:12 PM)FoUTASportscaster Wrote:  Since you are too lazy to click on a link that would contradict your point, I'll try to spell it out.

NCAA distribution for 2014/15:
ULM: 897,088
ULL:1,295,517
LTU: 1,155,812

Conference distribution
ULM: 1,372,981
ULL: 1,050,000
LTU: 1,422,273

Royalties, licensing, advertisements, and sponsorships
ULM: 170,457
ULL: 948,931
LTU: 290,213

Media rights
ULM: 0
ULL: 43,070
LTU: 1,010,717

Total
ULM: 2,440,526
ULL: 3,337,518
LTU: 3,879,015

Were it not for the media rights, ULL would have been ahead and ULM would have been even. That is as close to an apples-to-apples comparison as you'll ever find.

Those number validate the numbers I posted from USA Today... so what is your point?

You are looking at a CUSA school that is listed next to last in the conference vs a school that is listed 2nd in the SBC .....

So if you believe those numbers (they are off but not by much) then all the numbers are correct. It means that each and every former SBC schools has increased their dollars by millions since joining CUSA.

But what it also shows....the SBC has ZERO VALUE....ZERO ZERO ZERO to it's members as far as a dollar amount for the SBC TV contract with espn.

ULM list...ZERO and I assume ULL's is from local ads since it's under 50k

Take the million from each of those former SBC and we are still talking about a HUGE difference since joining CUSA

That when the CUSA contract goes FROM PAYING MILLIONS TO HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS PER SCHOOL, THERE WILL NO LONGER BE A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE CONFERENCE PAYOUTS.

Better?

Is it that hard for you to understand...

TAKE AWAY ALL CUSA TV MONEY....

most schools still makes millions more than 9 out of 11 SBC teams.

You validated the numbers...

Take away 1 million from the MUTS and they are still at 4.1 million tops in the SBC.

Take away 1 million from Western and it's still almost 1 million more than Western made in their last year of SBC play.

Take away 1 million from UNT and they are still at 5.1 million 2.3 million more than when they left the SBC

Take away 1 million from FAU and they are still at 4.1 million almost 2 million over their last year playing in the SBC

That's without ANY TV money

Is that too hard for you to understand? Even without any TV money each school would be ranked at the top of the SBC. So as I said...

there is value to CUSA schools BEYOND a TV contract. It's right there in black and white...numbers validated by you. If ULL, Tech and ULM numbers are correct then all are. Right?

CUSA's contract paid 14 million a year...14 schools 1 million for each school. Not MILLIONS as you stated. Last report was the contract would pay 7 million ..50%. But as I said take all the contract money out.

Will you please, please look at the numbers I posted. The only reason La Tech made more than its peer schools in the SBC is the media deal. Not licensing. That is according to uniform numbers from one system, a true apples-to-apples comparison. If you don't, that's on you. Louisiana made more in licensing than La Tech did in 2014-2015, according to the University of Louisiana system.

(05-09-2016 01:33 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(05-09-2016 01:18 PM)FoUTASportscaster Wrote:  

(05-09-2016 12:40 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(05-09-2016 12:12 PM)FoUTASportscaster Wrote:  Since you are too lazy to click on a link that would contradict your point, I'll try to spell it out.

NCAA distribution for 2014/15:
ULM: 897,088
ULL:1,295,517
LTU: 1,155,812

Conference distribution
ULM: 1,372,981
ULL: 1,050,000
LTU: 1,422,273

Royalties, licensing, advertisements, and sponsorships
ULM: 170,457
ULL: 948,931
LTU: 290,213

Media rights
ULM: 0
ULL: 43,070
LTU: 1,010,717

Total
ULM: 2,440,526
ULL: 3,337,518
LTU: 3,879,015

Were it not for the media rights, ULL would have been ahead and ULM would have been even. That is as close to an apples-to-apples comparison as you'll ever find.

Those number validate the numbers I posted from USA Today... so what is your point?

You are looking at a CUSA school that is listed next to last in the conference vs a school that is listed 2nd in the SBC .....

So if you believe those numbers (they are off but not by much) then all the numbers are correct. It means that each and every former SBC schools has increased their dollars by millions since joining CUSA.

But what it also shows....the SBC has ZERO VALUE....ZERO ZERO ZERO to it's members as far as a dollar amount for the SBC TV contract with espn.

ULM list...ZERO and I assume ULL's is from local ads since it's under 50k

Take the million from each of those former SBC and we are still talking about a HUGE difference since joining CUSA

That when the CUSA contract goes FROM PAYING MILLIONS TO HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS PER SCHOOL, THERE WILL NO LONGER BE A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE CONFERENCE PAYOUTS.

Better?

Is it that hard for you to understand...

TAKE AWAY ALL CUSA TV MONEY....

most schools still makes millions more than 9 out of 11 SBC teams.

You validated the numbers...

Take away 1 million from the MUTS and they are still at 4.1 million tops in the SBC.

Take away 1 million from Western and it's still almost 1 million more than Western made in their last year of SBC play.

Take away 1 million from UNT and they are still at 5.1 million 2.3 million more than when they left the SBC

Take away 1 million from FAU and they are still at 4.1 million almost 2 million over their last year playing in the SBC

That's without ANY TV money

Is that too hard for you to understand? Even without any TV money each school would be ranked at the top of the SBC. So as I said...

there is value to CUSA schools BEYOND a TV contract. It's right there in black and white...numbers validated by you. If ULL, Tech and ULM numbers are correct then all are. Right?

CUSA's contract paid 14 million a year...14 schools 1 million for each school. Not MILLIONS as you stated. Last report was the contract would pay 7 million ..50%. But as I said take all the contract money out.

Take one million from MTSU and their budget as reported by USA Today falls to $30.67 million OR they have to increase the subsidy of athletics to $20.4 million from $19.4 million.
Take it from WKU and the budget becomes $29.2 million or the subsidy rises to $20.4 million from 19.4
Take it from UNT and either the budget falls to $30.3 million or the subsidy rises from $20 million to $20.1 million
Take it from FAU and either the budget falls to $29.9 million or the subsidy rises from $19 million to $20 million.

I don't see that being significantly different than AState at $29.2 million and $14 million in subsidy or App $29.6 million and $19.4 million subsidy.

(05-09-2016 11:34 AM)Bobcat87 Wrote:  

(05-09-2016 11:28 AM)AppManDG Wrote:  

(05-08-2016 08:39 PM)airtroop Wrote:  

(05-08-2016 07:14 PM)FoUTASportscaster Wrote:  WKUYG, did you even read my post? I made no mention of any possible scenario for an SBC TV deal, so half of what you typed is irrelevant to my point. But, since we are on the topic, it doesn't take Nostradamus to see the small amount of the current deal, combined with the fact that SBC schools have sold their soul and will play on any day of the week, a rise in the rankings of the top SBC teams from when the last deal was negotiated and that 2-to-4 less schools to divide the money over that the SBC will get more per school than they are now. Whether that will reach what CUSA's deal per school is up for debate and very dependent upon your point-of-view and bias.

As for travel, UTEP pretty much has to fly every road conference game. The same with the F_U's, with the exception of themselves. UTSA can bus to three schools. USM, ODU can bus to three. WKU has it good in that they can bus to three eastern schools and maybe UAB. Most of the rest of CUSA can't make that claim. Now when your tennis teams, softball, baseball, soccer and volleyball squads all have to fly, it adds up.

In the SBC, yes, the extreme outliers will have to fly within their division, but TXST can bus to three schools. App can bus to four. That's far more compact than anything C-USA can offer.

That's real savings.

With CUSA spliting CFP money 14 ways, the SBC 10, media deals split 14 ways, the SBC 12, that adds up to. I stick to my point. The revenue minus cost sees no difference between the conferences.

This post actually looked at two athletic finances from the same system, with one belonging to CUSA, two to the SBC. I found there was a marginal difference in revenue, primarily from the CUSA media deal. After that shrinks, it will be near the same or in the SBC's favor.

http://csnbbs.com/thread-777974-post-132...id13220328

EDIT: CUSA saw so much value in the size of the market and tried to pimp it out very hard. To the "Marketz" contingent on this board, I offer page 7 of their media guide.

http://grfx.cstv.com/photos/schools/c-us...-guide.pdf

Quote:C-USA membership include institutions within eight of the Top
40 media markets and four in the Top 25 according to Nielsen.
C-USA home markets this year will include more than 13 million TV
households, a 30 percent increase from two years ago.

If nobody's watching those #'s mean nothing.

Maybe as You Put It, the #'s mean nothing . . . But I'm sure that every school in CUSA is happy with the additional annual revenue they see Vs. annual revenue in The Belt . . . .

Bottom line, every school that's left The Belt for CUSA has done better financially.

Up until now anyway.....

(05-09-2016 12:52 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(05-09-2016 12:32 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-08-2016 12:45 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Apparently there are some over in CUSA land (and some AAC commentators) that have opined that there's some sort of clause requiring the exiting schools to make up the difference in the next TV contract.

Assuming that is the case, I would imagine that the difference would only accrue to teams that were in the conference when they left, so UNCC, ODU, UAB (probably), La Tech, MTSU, FIU, FAU, UTSA, and WKU might not get those payments.

Either way, those payments will end at some point.

The way it was reported in the articles I saw, the departees only had to make up the difference if the existing contract was renegotiated down which happened when CUSA 1.x became CUSA 2.x

No, it happened when 2.0 became 3.0 apparently.

"C-USA’s TV revenue has, in essence, been subsidized by the seven schools that left the league in 2013 and 2014, including East Carolina, Memphis and Houston. Because of the change in membership, Fox and CBS Sports Network paid C-USA less than the full value of their contracts. C-USA used exit fees from seven schools to supplement TV revenues and cushion the blow."

http://pilotonline.com/sports/college/ol...db1b7.html

Reality Face Slap time.... Face it. Your schools fell hook, line & sinker for a fantasy world created by Banowsky. At least the folks at La Tech, Marshall, Rice, S Miss, UAB & UTEP were along for the ride when the contract was legit. Anybody with half a brain could see this coming.

(05-09-2016 06:54 PM)AppManDG Wrote:  

(05-09-2016 12:52 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(05-09-2016 12:32 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-08-2016 12:45 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Apparently there are some over in CUSA land (and some AAC commentators) that have opined that there's some sort of clause requiring the exiting schools to make up the difference in the next TV contract.

Assuming that is the case, I would imagine that the difference would only accrue to teams that were in the conference when they left, so UNCC, ODU, UAB (probably), La Tech, MTSU, FIU, FAU, UTSA, and WKU might not get those payments.

Either way, those payments will end at some point.

The way it was reported in the articles I saw, the departees only had to make up the difference if the existing contract was renegotiated down which happened when CUSA 1.x became CUSA 2.x

No, it happened when 2.0 became 3.0 apparently.

"C-USA’s TV revenue has, in essence, been subsidized by the seven schools that left the league in 2013 and 2014, including East Carolina, Memphis and Houston. Because of the change in membership, Fox and CBS Sports Network paid C-USA less than the full value of their contracts. C-USA used exit fees from seven schools to supplement TV revenues and cushion the blow."

http://pilotonline.com/sports/college/ol...db1b7.html

Reality Face Slap time.... Face it. Your schools fell hook, line & sinker for a fantasy world created by Banowsky. At least the folks at La Tech, Marshall, Rice, S Miss, UAB & UTEP were along for the ride when the contract was legit. Anybody with half a brain could see this coming.

Do you think we'd be better off still in the CAA with JMU or in the Sunbelt?

Some of our CUSA only want to look at the past, but we are talking about the future when the playing field is even. The Sun Belt hasn't had a stable lineup, and has had to fill openings with FCS moveups several times. Now the conference has a stable core, the move ups are established with 3 going to bowls in 2015, the league has increased its bowls, and the CFP payouts have equalized post season revenue. During that time CUSA has been living off of old contracts and exit fees to support them during realignment. Now those revenues are dropping significantly, and the on field performance and fan support is below the level of the former schools. It will be interesting to see what happens with the SBC contract in 2 years. By that time both conferences will be very established with their current lineups. Unless the P5's go crazy, and at that point none of this will matter.

(05-09-2016 07:05 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(05-09-2016 06:54 PM)AppManDG Wrote:  

(05-09-2016 12:52 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(05-09-2016 12:32 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-08-2016 12:45 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Apparently there are some over in CUSA land (and some AAC commentators) that have opined that there's some sort of clause requiring the exiting schools to make up the difference in the next TV contract.

Assuming that is the case, I would imagine that the difference would only accrue to teams that were in the conference when they left, so UNCC, ODU, UAB (probably), La Tech, MTSU, FIU, FAU, UTSA, and WKU might not get those payments.

Either way, those payments will end at some point.

The way it was reported in the articles I saw, the departees only had to make up the difference if the existing contract was renegotiated down which happened when CUSA 1.x became CUSA 2.x

No, it happened when 2.0 became 3.0 apparently.

"C-USA’s TV revenue has, in essence, been subsidized by the seven schools that left the league in 2013 and 2014, including East Carolina, Memphis and Houston. Because of the change in membership, Fox and CBS Sports Network paid C-USA less than the full value of their contracts. C-USA used exit fees from seven schools to supplement TV revenues and cushion the blow."

http://pilotonline.com/sports/college/ol...db1b7.html

Reality Face Slap time.... Face it. Your schools fell hook, line & sinker for a fantasy world created by Banowsky. At least the folks at La Tech, Marshall, Rice, S Miss, UAB & UTEP were along for the ride when the contract was legit. Anybody with half a brain could see this coming.

Do you think we'd be better off still in the CAA with JMU or in the Sunbelt?

Oh come now...the CAA is where its at. JMU is a sleeping giant I'm telling you.

Post from the conference realignment message board. Latest Report on CUSA TV Deal.

(05-09-2016 04:57 PM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  This interview with ODU AD Wood Selig gives insight into the CUSA contract (@ 4 min mark). It looks as if the contract was reduced from $14M to around $6M after the defections to the AAC. The former members made "penalty payments" to make current members whole at @ $1M per school. The contract reflecting current value on the open market has yet to be finalized.

So from this it looks like to me that from all the news reports about CUSA new TV contract that they will be taking a major hit from the number that they were getting which as actually only $6M.

$6M = $428k per school
$5M = $357k per school
$4M = $285k per school
$3M = $214k per school
$2M = $142k per school

(05-09-2016 09:46 PM)ValleyBoy Wrote:  So from this it looks like to me that from all the news reports about CUSA new TV contract that they will be taking a major hit from the number that they were getting which as actually only $6M.

$6M = $428k per school
$5M = $357k per school
$4M = $285k per school
$3M = $214k per school
$2M = $142k per school

If it give us increased exposure, as the commissioner has stated, then it is worth the hit. I consider it an investment. Also if $500K - $1M is a major hit for anyone in FBS, then they should be down in FCS.

So now it's about exposure??? The spin never stops.

(05-10-2016 08:30 AM)wh49er Wrote:  

(05-09-2016 09:46 PM)ValleyBoy Wrote:  So from this it looks like to me that from all the news reports about CUSA new TV contract that they will be taking a major hit from the number that they were getting which as actually only $6M.

$6M = $428k per school
$5M = $357k per school
$4M = $285k per school
$3M = $214k per school
$2M = $142k per school

If it give us increased exposure, as the commissioner has stated, then it is worth the hit. I consider it an investment. Also if $500K - $1M is a major hit for anyone in FBS, then they should be down in FCS.

Major might have not been the best word to have used. A little hit might have been better but on average I would say it is about a 3% hit to each member of CUSA budget. Now I would feel that each member of the conference saw this decrease coming down the pipe way before us internet posters first heard about it so therefor they have planned according.

(05-10-2016 09:02 AM)AppManDG Wrote:  So now it's about exposure??? The spin never stops.

Not sure if they are spinning...or finally wised up.

Honestly, I was hoping they would continue taking a few thousand more to not be seen.

(05-10-2016 08:30 AM)wh49er Wrote:  If it give us increased exposure, as the commissioner has stated, then it is worth the hit. I consider it an investment. Also if $500K - $1M is a major hit for anyone in FBS, then they should be down in FCS.

It's funny the "small" amount of difference in tv payout and bowl payout historically was used as a reason CUSA was so far ahead of the SBC, but now a similar sized decreased is inconsequential.

(05-09-2016 07:05 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(05-09-2016 06:54 PM)AppManDG Wrote:  

(05-09-2016 12:52 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(05-09-2016 12:32 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-08-2016 12:45 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Apparently there are some over in CUSA land (and some AAC commentators) that have opined that there's some sort of clause requiring the exiting schools to make up the difference in the next TV contract.

Assuming that is the case, I would imagine that the difference would only accrue to teams that were in the conference when they left, so UNCC, ODU, UAB (probably), La Tech, MTSU, FIU, FAU, UTSA, and WKU might not get those payments.

Either way, those payments will end at some point.

The way it was reported in the articles I saw, the departees only had to make up the difference if the existing contract was renegotiated down which happened when CUSA 1.x became CUSA 2.x

No, it happened when 2.0 became 3.0 apparently.

"C-USA’s TV revenue has, in essence, been subsidized by the seven schools that left the league in 2013 and 2014, including East Carolina, Memphis and Houston. Because of the change in membership, Fox and CBS Sports Network paid C-USA less than the full value of their contracts. C-USA used exit fees from seven schools to supplement TV revenues and cushion the blow."

http://pilotonline.com/sports/college/ol...db1b7.html

Reality Face Slap time.... Face it. Your schools fell hook, line & sinker for a fantasy world created by Banowsky. At least the folks at La Tech, Marshall, Rice, S Miss, UAB & UTEP were along for the ride when the contract was legit. Anybody with half a brain could see this coming.

Do you think we'd be better off still in the CAA with JMU or in the Sunbelt?

Where did that come from? I'm simply trying to get you guys to accept the reality. That CUSA media market fantasy Banowsky sold to your administrators was based on what CUSA WAS, not what it is. Going forward you'll be no better off than the SB. We are equals in the site of TV execs.

(05-10-2016 09:02 AM)AppManDG Wrote:  So now it's about exposure??? The spin never stops.

It is true but nobody wanted to hear that when some of us pointed out that the value of the TV contract was the exposure on ESPN and its platforms vs. getting paid more to be on networks that nobody watches.

We can go back to oldthreads and find where cusa fans were saying there wouldn't be a major reduction in money. Basically the new deal is a realistic value on the current version of the cusa.

There is no benefit to moving unless it's to save money in travel, renew rivals, or acces to bowl games. But you have to fork out $4M to do it

(05-10-2016 09:11 AM)Saint3333 Wrote:  

(05-10-2016 08:30 AM)wh49er Wrote:  If it give us increased exposure, as the commissioner has stated, then it is worth the hit. I consider it an investment. Also if $500K - $1M is a major hit for anyone in FBS, then they should be down in FCS.

It's funny the "small" amount of difference in tv payout and bowl payout historically was used as a reason CUSA was so far ahead of the SBC, but now a similar sized decreased is inconsequential.

The differential is much less now. CUSA still has some advantages, such as a bowl matchup against a P5 team in most years. USM and Marshall (and to a lesser extent Rice) provide some greater recognition for the league.

(05-10-2016 09:02 AM)AppManDG Wrote:  So now it's about exposure??? The spin never stops.

Exposure wasn't worth weeknight games when that was what the Sun Belt fans touted. It's like 1984 (the novel not the year)