(01-11-2019 04:42 PM)EigenEagle Wrote:  

(01-11-2019 04:33 PM)eaglewraith Wrote:  Why the hell would they get a share from a sport they do not sponsor?

I'm not claiming to know for sure, but why would UTA and ULR vote to add Georgia Southern and App State if they wouldn't benefit somehow?

If they get full shares, how is that fair to the schools in the conference who shoulder the financial costs of football programs?

I could see an incentive for them that would include smaller shares, but not the same as schools that do sponsor football.

Granted, none of us really know the details....I'd be curious to see what they are.

(01-11-2019 04:33 PM)eaglewraith Wrote:  Why the hell would they get a share from a sport they do not sponsor?

I always say, if you have non-football members in your league, and they are not giving you tourney units, they have no business being in your league.

And now we know why the previous CUSA commissioner, who put together this 14 team conference, got the hell out of dodge.

I dont know the answer to this, but if the non- footbal schools are getting shares of the CFP money, and are not becoming good enough in basketball ( with a million plus dollar budget advantage over the rest of the conference ) to get the conference a 2nd bid, then its time for them to go.

now if they are indeed NOT getting any CFP money then ignore above rant.

Makes no sense for them to get any CFP or Bowl money if they aren't contributing to the cause. TV money and NCAA credits sure, but not football specific funds.

I can see throwing the non football schools a bone...but not the whole steak...giving them an equal share puts the football playing schools at a disadvantage on the court...none of our schools are rolling in the dough...equal shares to non football schools makes no sense...but like previously posted...if that got the SBC a second school in the NCAA tourney then maybe it is money well spent...but that hasn't happened.

You should put in the work (playing football) to get the College FOOTBALL money. Seems like this would be common sense.

How much did UALR get us a few years ago?

(01-13-2019 10:26 AM)troutbummike Wrote:  How much did UALR get us a few years ago?

Yes, but we all play basketball.

If you're school doesn't play a sport then you should get a payment distribution for that sport. There would seemingly be a league cost benefit from this money that the non football schools benefit from but as far as a check to them for the CFP distribution I believe that they should get none.

Someone will know the answer.

Basketball schools receiving CFP money would make no sense. UTA and UALR don't spend millions to have a football program like we do. If they received CFP money, then that would mean they're making more money at the end of the day than all of us.

(01-13-2019 12:11 PM)HighlandsApp Wrote:  

(01-13-2019 10:26 AM)troutbummike Wrote:  How much did UALR get us a few years ago?

Yes, but we all play basketball.

If you're school doesn't play a sport then you should get a payment distribution for that sport. There would seemingly be a league cost benefit from this money that the non football schools benefit from but as far as a check to them for the CFP distribution I believe that they should get none.

Someone will know the answer.

Do we?

(01-13-2019 02:11 PM)troutbummike Wrote:  

(01-13-2019 12:11 PM)HighlandsApp Wrote:  

(01-13-2019 10:26 AM)troutbummike Wrote:  How much did UALR get us a few years ago?

Yes, but we all play basketball.

If you're school doesn't play a sport then you should get a payment distribution for that sport. There would seemingly be a league cost benefit from this money that the non football schools benefit from but as far as a check to them for the CFP distribution I believe that they should get none.

Someone will know the answer.

Do we?

Hey, ya'll try hard.

That's what matters right?

Im with the non football members shouldnt get football money group. That's a ridiculously unfair advantage if they arent bringing the football schools equally as much in the other money sports

Of course TXST hasnt done its part so we dont have alot of ground to stand on.

(01-13-2019 07:12 PM)bokobobcat1919 Wrote:  Im with the non football members shouldnt get football money group. That's a ridiculously unfair advantage if they arent bringing the football schools equally as much in the other money sports

Of course TXST hasnt done its part so we dont have alot of ground to stand on.

But you spend $$ and play the sport that the money is from, thus you get paid.

(01-13-2019 02:11 PM)troutbummike Wrote:  

(01-13-2019 12:11 PM)HighlandsApp Wrote:  

(01-13-2019 10:26 AM)troutbummike Wrote:  How much did UALR get us a few years ago?

Yes, but we all play basketball.

If you're school doesn't play a sport then you should get a payment distribution for that sport. There would seemingly be a league cost benefit from this money that the non football schools benefit from but as far as a check to them for the CFP distribution I believe that they should get none.

Someone will know the answer.

Do we?

Good one....

I'm fine with AppState dropping men's basketball. Let's add women's and men's lacrosse instead....

Ever wonder why conferences do not have their policy manuals online for anyone interested to see how they operate?

(01-11-2019 04:42 PM)EigenEagle Wrote:  

(01-11-2019 04:33 PM)eaglewraith Wrote:  Why the hell would they get a share from a sport they do not sponsor?

I'm not claiming to know for sure, but why would UTA and ULR vote to add Georgia Southern and App State if they wouldn't benefit somehow?

As a UTA fan, I'm sure we will appreciate any share of the proceeds we will get. The more we receive, the sooner we can afford to begin Football, and since the rest of our conference would love to be showcased in the DFW market, that will be a net plus for all. I find it ironic and humorous that UNT stands to get less as a CUSA member than they would've gotten by staying in the 'belt. They really screwed the pooch with that move!

After going over UALR's football feasibility study, the revenue section of the study appears to be worded in such a way that by UALR adding football, they gain access to CFP Playoff revenue.

Also, by looking at Wichita State's latest athletics financial breakdown in the Wichita Business Journal, they received zero additional revenue from the AAC from a CFP payout, even though they field every sport except football in the AAC.

Unless the Sun Belt has a different distribution set up, it appears to me that UTA and UALR do not receive a share.

(01-14-2019 12:17 AM)CardinalBlackTrojan Wrote:  After going over UALR's football feasibility study, the revenue section of the study appears to be worded in such a way that by UALR adding football, they gain access to CFP Playoff revenue.

Also, by looking at Wichita State's latest athletics financial breakdown in the Wichita Business Journal, they received zero additional revenue from the AAC from a CFP payout, even though they field every sport except football in the AAC.

Unless the Sun Belt has a different distribution set up, it appears to me that UTA and UALR do not receive a share.

WSU doesn’t get anything from our current contract but will get 30% of the next one

I don't think UALR/UTA get a full share, but I can see them getting a partial share. There seems to be a lot of disagreements here from sources in terms of who gets what.