(02-04-2019 06:01 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(02-04-2019 04:49 PM)balanced_view Wrote:  All this talk about the Sun Belt and CUSA needing to reshuffle is one sided. the Sun Belt for the last 3 years has steadily increased its revenues, profile, and exposure. along with have a pretty decent travel setup, the bar for any President to make a move to help CUSA out of THEIR circumstances has been raised to a place that i imagine several CUSA members wont like. i can see 2 current CUSA schools coming over to the Sun Belt before a complete reshuffle of the two conferences.

Which two would consider the SBC as preferable? Charlotte and ODU?

USM, UAB, UTSA, and maybe Marshall ( if USM is the other to leave) are the only ones that would even be a conversation, IMO. which 2 out of those 4 would be another topic all together.

(02-04-2019 01:53 PM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  

(02-03-2019 11:00 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(02-03-2019 10:54 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I think NMSU was wise to stay in FBS because I think they are one major realignment move from getting back into a G5 league and they just need to hold out a little longer.

A SBC/C-USA reshuffle could land them in the club or if the MWC sees a defection an opportunity will arise. (The AAC reviving the coast-to-coast best-of-the rest concept could make that happen.)

Right now they have other independents like UMass, Liberty, and BYU along with rivalry games with UNM and UTEP that keep the football calendar filled and the WAC is no longer in eminent danger of disbanding.

There will be no reshuffle between C-USA and the Sun Belt. Too many programs are content to spend more money on travel in order to avoid playing old conference foes.

That's the line of thinking that's sinking CUSA into the toilet.

Gouging your students with ultra high athletic fees just to afford to fly your teams across the country to a school your fans have never heard of to play in a mostly empty stadium because their fans have never heard of you just to pretend to be better than the school down the street is ludicrous and a large reason why CUSA find itself at the bottom of the FBS pecking order now.

No. The reason some programs in C-USA are struggling, is the same reason some in the Sun Belt and MAC are too. Because they refuse to adequately invest in their programs and are trying to compete in the FBS on shoe string budgets.

North Texas has back to back 9 win seasons, and set back to back attendance records. While the overwhelming trend in college football is declining attendance, UNT has increased their average attendance by adding over 5,000 more fans per game over in recent years.

The formula isn't complicated. Ditch the body-bag games, and schedule better competition to home and home series. Build better facilities and hire better coaches, so you can recruit better players. Win. It has nothing to do with conferencing with more regional Sun Belt programs that won't excite our fan base, and everything to do with developing more revenue to finance the growth of our athletic department, so we can continue to improve.

There are only a few programs in C-USA pushing for a reshuffle, and they don't have the votes, and in our current alignment, they never will. I've said it before, any program that isn't happy in C-USA can leave and drop their exit fee at the door on the way out. The programs that want to realign are the same ones that are under-funding their athletics, and can't or won't increase their commitment to playing at the FBS level.

(02-04-2019 06:01 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(02-04-2019 04:49 PM)balanced_view Wrote:  All this talk about the Sun Belt and CUSA needing to reshuffle is one sided. the Sun Belt for the last 3 years has steadily increased its revenues, profile, and exposure. along with have a pretty decent travel setup, the bar for any President to make a move to help CUSA out of THEIR circumstances has been raised to a place that i imagine several CUSA members wont like. i can see 2 current CUSA schools coming over to the Sun Belt before a complete reshuffle of the two conferences.

Which two would consider the SBC as preferable? Charlotte and ODU?

East: ODU, Charlotte, App St, Coastal, GA St, GA Southern
West: Texas St, Ark St, ULL, ULM, USA, Troy

I'll take it. Puts both Alabama schools in the west.
Or take USM and UAB put them both in the west and South Alabama moves east to join Troy.

I'll take status quo as well.

I think the better question we should be asking is if the NCAA were to actually enforce the minimum attendence requirements for FBS where would that leave us and what additional realignment moves would we see?

I think there would be a movement to try to downsize to 10 schools across the G5 landscape.

(02-04-2019 09:19 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I think the better question we should be asking is if the NCAA were to actually enforce the minimum attendence requirements for FBS where would that leave us and what additional realignment moves would we see?

I think there would be a movement to try to downsize to 10 schools across the G5 landscape.

They should enforce the old attendance requirement, but I don't think they actually have a way to accurately monitor attendance to keep programs from fudging their numbers.

(02-04-2019 09:26 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(02-04-2019 09:19 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I think the better question we should be asking is if the NCAA were to actually enforce the minimum attendence requirements for FBS where would that leave us and what additional realignment moves would we see?

I think there would be a movement to try to downsize to 10 schools across the G5 landscape.

They should enforce the old attendance requirement, but I don't think they actually have a way to accurately monitor attendance to keep programs from fudging their numbers.

I'm sure they could come up with a computerized way of counting fans in the stands from a photo, if they haven't already. You just need someone from outside the school to run it.

SBC would like to add Missouri State, Chattanooga and James Madison as a combination of the 2 mentioned.

Lamar wants FBS, and they could help bridge the gap to Texas State since Texas State is too far out from the rest of the conference teams for football.

(02-04-2019 03:22 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(02-03-2019 12:03 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-03-2019 09:53 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  [quote='SoCalBobcat78' pid='15880030' dateline='1549173184']
[quote='quo vadis' pid='15878948' dateline='1549153776']



As for whether existing to play money games is good or not in a values-sense, we just have to disagree about that.

Those FCS schools that are playing 2 money games against FBS should be questioning why they are even playing football IMO. Its not fair to the players and indicates that the program can't sustain itself. I don't remember who, but there were at least a couple of schools that did that this year, maybe more.

The bottom tier FBS playing 2 or more money games against P5 (although for independents scrambling to fill a schedule it may be for reasons other than money) have to ask the same question.

I have a hard time seeing problems with two money games in a season or money games in general. NMSU, as a member of the Sun Belt, played two money games in 2017, one at Arizona State for $800,000 and the other at Arkansas for 1.35 million. They lost at ASU 37-31 and Arkansas 42-24, but were still able to qualify for a bowl game and won that game to finish 7-6. They also had a $260,000 profit from the bowl game.

As an independent in 2018, NMSU played two money games, one at Minnesota for $800,000 and the other at BYU for $700,000. They are playing three in 2019, for a total of $3.8 million. Three is a lot, but they are an FBS independent. The money games are a by-product of FBS football. If Alabama wants to pay NMSU $1.7 million in 2019 and $1.9 million in 2021, why would that be a problem? Sure, they are likely to get blown out, but how does that differ from most SEC teams that play at Alabama?

UMass, ULM, SJSU, they all have their own reasons for their scheduling and playing at the FBS level. UMass scheduled football games with both South Carolina and Georgia, each for $1.5 million. They also used the football scheduling to add home-and-home basketball games with both. They beat Georgia in 2017 at home in basketball and they play South Carolina at home in 2019. They also somehow managed to get on the Notre Dame schedule, which is not easy. They played at Notre Dame in 2015 for $1 million. In 2018, an individual alumnus donated $5.58 million to their athletic department.

SJSU will only play one money game in each of the next three seasons, at Arkansas (2019), Penn State (2020) and Georgia (2021). The Arkansas and Penn State game pay $1.5 million each, Geogia will pay $1.8 million. Besides their CFP revenue and MWC revenue, they have received some good donations. In November they received a $2 million donation to football and in February of 2018 they received a $5 million donation to football. It is possible to win at SJSU in football. In 2012, they went 11-2 with a bowl win and ended up #21 in both the AP and Coaches poll. That team had eight payers that ended up making NFL rosters.

ULM, as I noted in another post, brought in $2.7 million from money games in 2018 and made $1.7 million from the CFP revenue. A total of $4.4 million from those two sources, which is 80% of their football budget. Maybe they should have never moved up, but they are FBS and there is no good financial reason for them to drop back down. This is the same school that beat a Nick Saban coached Alabama team in 2008 and Arkansas in 2012.

I think once these schools get hooked on the money from football revenue and donations, plus the prestige of being at the FBS level, they are not going to leave it. NMSU has a geography problem that makes playing in any conference difficult. There are five FBS schools and zero FCS schools within 400 miles of the NMSU campus. UTEP is 45 miles away and New Mexico is 220 miles away. NMSU looked at the Big Sky, but the travel was brutal. They made the wise decision to stay at FBS.

This is great work.

SJSU, ULM, NMSU are cases of G5's in the bottom quartile of FB revenues yet even in their cases between the CFP money, money games and the occasional big donor gift it is still a better deal than FCS obscurity.

In the 80's the choice wasn't quite as obvious. No post season money, very little chance of a bowl and not the level of individual wealth that we have today for the giving.

Any program in a G5 is pretty secure with CFP and guarantee money. Its when you get left out like Idaho did without any future conference prospects that it can make sense to pull the plug.

(02-04-2019 09:19 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I think the better question we should be asking is if the NCAA were to actually enforce the minimum attendence requirements for FBS where would that leave us and what additional realignment moves would we see?

I think there would be a movement to try to downsize to 10 schools across the G5 landscape.

The attendance rule is a "paid" requirement as of about 15 years ago.

EMU is in the clear with a corporate purchase of 15,000 each year.

Attendance force out is dead.

(02-04-2019 10:28 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(02-04-2019 09:19 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I think the better question we should be asking is if the NCAA were to actually enforce the minimum attendence requirements for FBS where would that leave us and what additional realignment moves would we see?

I think there would be a movement to try to downsize to 10 schools across the G5 landscape.

The attendance rule is a "paid" requirement as of about 15 years ago.

EMU is in the clear with a corporate purchase of 15,000 each year.

Attendance force out is dead.

Both Eastern Michigan and Miami Florida both cooked their books to make them look better.

(02-04-2019 02:09 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(02-04-2019 01:59 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  Montana and Montana State would want to be like minded schools in the Mountain West.
Montana is an R2
Montana State moved to an R1 school. They both fit the MWC profile except for San Jose State and Fresno State.

UTEP would take a Mountain side spot instead of New Mexico State.

UC-Davis and Portland State are both R1 and R2 which they do fit MWC.

MWC could grab to be the first 24 team conference. 4 pods of 6. This could get Hawaii in for all sports with 5 California schools.
Portland State and Eastern Washington would join Boise State, UNR, Utah State and bring BYU back for all sports.
Mountain will get Montana and Montana State.
East would get UTEP, UTSA, Missouri State, Northern Iowa, NDSU and South Dakota State.

This would boast the football and basketball. AAC and MWC do have a much better path of getting into the playoffs than C-USA, MAC and SBC. The schools in the other 3 conferences need to build onto their strength to try and get into those 2 conferences. UMass., Southern Miss. and ODU have been mentioned in joining the AAC. With the plight of UConn.? AAC might have to expand with UMass. and maybe a Northern Illinois to help UConn out. Illinois State could be picked to join the MAC to replace Northern Illinois.

The only way the MWC or AAC is going to be compelled to go larger is if there is a deal on the table to expand the P5 to a P8 given at least 16 teams per conference.

MWC: UTEP, Rice, UNT, UTSA
AAC: USM, UAB, Georgia St, ODU
CUSA: SBC- AState, Louisiana, USA, GaSouthern, App St.
CUSA: MAC- NIU, Western Mich, Toledo, Miami, Ohio

That would leave 5 SBC an 7 MAC programs left outside of the structure to decide their own future. I could see a few deciding to move down if permanently cut off from the TV money.

Others would try and forge on as low level FBS independents to join UMass, NMSU, Liberty in scheduling.

The only one of those little sets the MWC might want is UNT. They could take UTEP if they got their act together already g with NMSU. Rice and UTSA bring nothing athletically to the MW.

Forget the Montana schools, they do not want FBS,


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Rice for the academics and Houston market is very valuable.

(02-05-2019 08:02 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  Rice for the academics and Houston market is very valuable.

Yes, people often ignore what university presidents are interested in. Rice and UTEP joining the Mountain West makes sense, then Boise can move to the West Division. The MWC worked great for TCU on an island, don’t see why it wouldn’t for Rice.

(02-04-2019 09:31 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  SBC would like to add Missouri State, Chattanooga and James Madison as a combination of the 2 mentioned.

Lamar wants FBS, and they could help bridge the gap to Texas State since Texas State is too far out from the rest of the conference teams for football.

The Sun Belt would like to stay at 10 teams. There is zero reason to add two more especially from the FCS.

(02-04-2019 09:08 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(02-04-2019 01:53 PM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  

(02-03-2019 11:00 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(02-03-2019 10:54 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I think NMSU was wise to stay in FBS because I think they are one major realignment move from getting back into a G5 league and they just need to hold out a little longer.

A SBC/C-USA reshuffle could land them in the club or if the MWC sees a defection an opportunity will arise. (The AAC reviving the coast-to-coast best-of-the rest concept could make that happen.)

Right now they have other independents like UMass, Liberty, and BYU along with rivalry games with UNM and UTEP that keep the football calendar filled and the WAC is no longer in eminent danger of disbanding.

There will be no reshuffle between C-USA and the Sun Belt. Too many programs are content to spend more money on travel in order to avoid playing old conference foes.

That's the line of thinking that's sinking CUSA into the toilet.

Gouging your students with ultra high athletic fees just to afford to fly your teams across the country to a school your fans have never heard of to play in a mostly empty stadium because their fans have never heard of you just to pretend to be better than the school down the street is ludicrous and a large reason why CUSA find itself at the bottom of the FBS pecking order now.

No. The reason some programs in C-USA are struggling, is the same reason some in the Sun Belt and MAC are too. Because they refuse to adequately invest in their programs and are trying to compete in the FBS on shoe string budgets.

North Texas has back to back 9 win seasons, and set back to back attendance records. While the overwhelming trend in college football is declining attendance, UNT has increased their average attendance by adding over 5,000 more fans per game over in recent years.

The formula isn't complicated. Ditch the body-bag games, and schedule better competition to home and home series. Build better facilities and hire better coaches, so you can recruit better players. Win. It has nothing to do with conferencing with more regional Sun Belt programs that won't excite our fan base, and everything to do with developing more revenue to finance the growth of our athletic department, so we can continue to improve.

There are only a few programs in C-USA pushing for a reshuffle, and they don't have the votes, and in our current alignment, they never will. I've said it before, any program that isn't happy in C-USA can leave and drop their exit fee at the door on the way out. The programs that want to realign are the same ones that are under-funding their athletics, and can't or won't increase their commitment to playing at the FBS level.

According to USA Today, North Texas' athletic budget is 66% subsidized by student fees. Congratulations on your very recent success, but don't pretend that UNT has always been a world beater who keeps climbing. Y'all aren't that far removed from perennial losing seasons (that also probably explains your recent rise in attendance). There's also a stark difference between paying just enough to compete in the G5 and price gouging your students to do the same. North Texas isn't any better off financially than most other CUSA/SBC schools.

(02-05-2019 09:15 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(02-05-2019 08:02 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  Rice for the academics and Houston market is very valuable.

Yes, people often ignore what university presidents are interested in. Rice and UTEP joining the Mountain West makes sense, then Boise can move to the West Division. The MWC worked great for TCU on an island, don’t see why it wouldn’t for Rice.

It’s more complicated than that. Most people focus on the financial side but the last thing the Pacific schools want is having UTEP vote with the Front Range schools on conference decisions. There’s not a Pacific alternative for them to level the field 7-7. Rice would be seen as a temporary member since their goal is to eventually be reunited with SMU, Houston, Tulsa and Tulane.

(02-04-2019 10:25 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(02-04-2019 03:22 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(02-03-2019 12:03 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-03-2019 09:53 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  [quote='SoCalBobcat78' pid='15880030' dateline='1549173184']
[quote='quo vadis' pid='15878948' dateline='1549153776']



As for whether existing to play money games is good or not in a values-sense, we just have to disagree about that.

Those FCS schools that are playing 2 money games against FBS should be questioning why they are even playing football IMO. Its not fair to the players and indicates that the program can't sustain itself. I don't remember who, but there were at least a couple of schools that did that this year, maybe more.

The bottom tier FBS playing 2 or more money games against P5 (although for independents scrambling to fill a schedule it may be for reasons other than money) have to ask the same question.

I have a hard time seeing problems with two money games in a season or money games in general. NMSU, as a member of the Sun Belt, played two money games in 2017, one at Arizona State for $800,000 and the other at Arkansas for 1.35 million. They lost at ASU 37-31 and Arkansas 42-24, but were still able to qualify for a bowl game and won that game to finish 7-6. They also had a $260,000 profit from the bowl game.

As an independent in 2018, NMSU played two money games, one at Minnesota for $800,000 and the other at BYU for $700,000. They are playing three in 2019, for a total of $3.8 million. Three is a lot, but they are an FBS independent. The money games are a by-product of FBS football. If Alabama wants to pay NMSU $1.7 million in 2019 and $1.9 million in 2021, why would that be a problem? Sure, they are likely to get blown out, but how does that differ from most SEC teams that play at Alabama?

UMass, ULM, SJSU, they all have their own reasons for their scheduling and playing at the FBS level. UMass scheduled football games with both South Carolina and Georgia, each for $1.5 million. They also used the football scheduling to add home-and-home basketball games with both. They beat Georgia in 2017 at home in basketball and they play South Carolina at home in 2019. They also somehow managed to get on the Notre Dame schedule, which is not easy. They played at Notre Dame in 2015 for $1 million. In 2018, an individual alumnus donated $5.58 million to their athletic department.

SJSU will only play one money game in each of the next three seasons, at Arkansas (2019), Penn State (2020) and Georgia (2021). The Arkansas and Penn State game pay $1.5 million each, Geogia will pay $1.8 million. Besides their CFP revenue and MWC revenue, they have received some good donations. In November they received a $2 million donation to football and in February of 2018 they received a $5 million donation to football. It is possible to win at SJSU in football. In 2012, they went 11-2 with a bowl win and ended up #21 in both the AP and Coaches poll. That team had eight payers that ended up making NFL rosters.

ULM, as I noted in another post, brought in $2.7 million from money games in 2018 and made $1.7 million from the CFP revenue. A total of $4.4 million from those two sources, which is 80% of their football budget. Maybe they should have never moved up, but they are FBS and there is no good financial reason for them to drop back down. This is the same school that beat a Nick Saban coached Alabama team in 2008 and Arkansas in 2012.

I think once these schools get hooked on the money from football revenue and donations, plus the prestige of being at the FBS level, they are not going to leave it. NMSU has a geography problem that makes playing in any conference difficult. There are five FBS schools and zero FCS schools within 400 miles of the NMSU campus. UTEP is 45 miles away and New Mexico is 220 miles away. NMSU looked at the Big Sky, but the travel was brutal. They made the wise decision to stay at FBS.

This is great work.

SJSU, ULM, NMSU are cases of G5's in the bottom quartile of FB revenues yet even in their cases between the CFP money, money games and the occasional big donor gift it is still a better deal than FCS obscurity.

In the 80's the choice wasn't quite as obvious. No post season money, very little chance of a bowl and not the level of individual wealth that we have today for the giving.

Any program in a G5 is pretty secure with CFP and guarantee money. Its when you get left out like Idaho did without any future conference prospects that it can make sense to pull the plug.

Bleeding student money in order to be laughing stocks? Obscurity is better.

http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances
USA Today listing of college sports revenues sorting by "allocation" which is basically the subsidy.

RK
49 Connecticut AAC $83,374,223 $83,121,820 $42,227,612 50.65
62 James Madison CAA $48,210,400 $48,210,400 $39,119,920 81.14
63 Massachusetts A-10 $48,054,005 $47,535,791 $37,249,930 77.52
55 Air Force Mt. West $59,577,780 $50,112,617 $33,339,247 55.96
34 Rutgers Big Ten $96,883,027 $99,193,280 $33,087,478 34.15
71 Delaware CAA $40,883,947 $40,883,947 $33,063,193 80.87
67 Old Dominion C-USA $46,203,813 $46,181,753 $28,681,512 62.08
88 Coastal Carolina Sun Belt $33,703,994 $33,704,483 $28,251,293 83.82
75 Texas State Sun Belt $38,445,832 $35,915,260 $27,787,153 72.28
57 Central Florida AAC $56,327,225 $56,327,225 $27,661,927 49.11
79 California-Davis Big West $35,954,033 $34,625,583 $27,442,876 76.33
91 Stony Brook Am East $32,458,520 $31,339,766 $26,799,950 82.57
54 Cincinnati AAC $60,458,195 $62,804,292 $26,745,506 44.24
76 Charlotte C-USA $37,931,802 $33,246,728 $25,709,896 67.78
56 Houston AAC $57,174,900 $55,277,308 $25,703,451 44.96
80 Buffalo MAC $35,892,221 $35,883,884 $25,628,422 71.40
83 Central Michigan MAC $34,692,784 $31,792,125 $25,077,606 72.28
77 Miami (Ohio) MAC $37,766,348 $36,097,843 $24,693,963 65.39
81 Akron MAC $35,331,217 $33,895,809 $24,641,163 69.74
74 Western Michigan MAC $38,516,531 $38,271,134 $24,349,702 63.22
58 San Diego State Mt. West $52,454,787 $51,569,852 $24,322,966 46.37
89 Florida International C-USA $33,389,929 $33,003,699 $24,028,758 71.96
84 Florida Atlantic C-USA $34,509,259 $34,102,683 $23,953,161 69.41
117 Towson CAA $26,989,399 $26,972,945 $23,576,513 87.35
69 Colorado State Mt. West $44,672,317 $43,965,622 $23,265,238 52.08
92 Eastern Michigan MAC $32,311,247 $32,311,246 $23,109,498 71.52
110 Sacramento State Big Sky $28,275,369 $25,866,367 $22,764,632 80.51
101 Georgia State Sun Belt $30,230,203 $29,859,420 $22,423,489 74.18
87 Middle Tennessee C-USA $34,040,334 $34,040,334 $22,376,798 65.74
103 George Mason A-10 $29,649,087 $29,649,087 $22,269,485 75.11
96 New Hampshire Am East $31,621,272 $31,243,908 $21,800,013 68.94
97 California Polytechnic Big West $31,435,074 $27,908,939 $21,762,270 69.23
102 Troy Sun Belt $29,962,107 $29,962,107 $21,711,635 72.46
65 Nevada-Las Vegas Mt. West $47,327,478 $47,476,606 $21,622,440 45.69
59 South Florida AAC $49,960,338 $48,227,500 $21,503,730 43.04
94 North Texas C-USA $32,150,203 $36,363,381 $21,398,461 66.56
111 Rhode Island A-10 $28,203,093 $28,048,377 $21,282,741 75.46
82 Appalachian State Sun Belt $35,058,621 $35,065,566 $21,257,458 60.63
90 Toledo MAC $32,925,921 $32,925,921 $21,073,807 64.00
98 San Jose State Mt. West $31,252,553 $30,676,330 $21,011,051 67.23
99 South Alabama Sun Belt $30,693,877 $27,949,252 $20,664,956 67.33
66 Fresno State Mt. West $46,215,249 $44,119,522 $20,634,658 44.65
86 Virginia Commonwealth A-10 $34,297,744 $33,595,855 $20,609,275 60.09
64 Hawaii Big West $47,780,885 $48,984,980 $20,486,904 42.88
93 Ohio MAC $32,234,688 $32,621,410 $20,090,007 62.32
61 East Carolina AAC $48,312,311 $48,387,287 $19,739,500 40.86
122 Kennesaw State Atl Sun $25,326,240 $24,193,201 $19,449,114 76.79
120 Ball State MAC $26,098,565 $27,410,745 $19,402,097 74.34
113 Illinois State Mo. Valley $27,852,407 $25,144,172 $19,096,462 68.56
85 Utah State Mt. West $34,398,296 $34,213,406 $18,911,117 54.98

(02-05-2019 11:56 AM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  

(02-05-2019 09:15 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(02-05-2019 08:02 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  Rice for the academics and Houston market is very valuable.

Yes, people often ignore what university presidents are interested in. Rice and UTEP joining the Mountain West makes sense, then Boise can move to the West Division. The MWC worked great for TCU on an island, don’t see why it wouldn’t for Rice.

It’s more complicated than that. Most people focus on the financial side but the last thing the Pacific schools want is having UTEP vote with the Front Range schools on conference decisions. There’s not a Pacific alternative for them to level the field 7-7. Rice would be seen as a temporary member since their goal is to eventually be reunited with SMU, Houston, Tulsa and Tulane.

We don't have our act together enough to have a 'goal'.

These are the top 50 in subsidy.
Non football schools-only 2
FCS 11 (3 of which are in California)
P5 1 (and Rutgers won't be there long when they get a full share)
G5 36

Of the G5-USA Today doesn't have the private schools
AAC 5 out of 7
MWC 8 out of 12
MAC 9 out of 12
Sun Belt 6 out of 10
CUSA 7 out of 14
Ind 1 out of 2

And if you go to the top 75, there are only 9 G5 schools not on the list:
Marshall 14.3 subsidy
ULL 12.8
ASU 12.6
Boise 12.6
Nevada 12.5
UNM 11.7
La Tech 10.7
USM 8.8
ULM 7.2

The 3 Louisiana schools, USM and Arkansas St. all have small budgets for FBS. The 3 MWC schools have pretty good revenues for the G5. Marshall mixes decent revenues with a moderate budget.

ULM spends 15.5 million. Next lowest in FBS is NMSU at 23.5. They aren't really spending enough to compete.