What NEEDS to be happening right now...

*bbbring bbbbring*
ESPN: Hello, ESPN.
Keith Gill: "uh yes, ESPN? Just curious...if we could snatch two big brands from CUSA would you pay us more money?"

(06-09-2020 09:36 AM)Oldyeller Wrote:  

(06-09-2020 08:03 AM)Florida RedWolf Wrote:  

(06-08-2020 09:37 AM)Oldyeller Wrote:  

(06-08-2020 06:33 AM)Florida RedWolf Wrote:  

(05-28-2020 10:06 PM)Oldyeller Wrote:  This doesn't look good at this time anyway you cut it for La Tech. The only explanation that I can come up with is conversation is happening and he ain't in it.

He is saying what I have stated here. Conf USA wants to restructure in G5 but that doesn't mean the SBC. If any merger should ever see the light of day, I'm betting very few SBC schools would be involved. As a rule, Conf USA believes they have a superior group of schools (academics, image, money, athletics maybe) and do not care to associate with us. Like we did not want to associate with Liberty a few years back. Done of this may or may not be true but think it is their vision of the SBC That simple.

Meh not really. The Liberty comparison is a stretch. Follow the money. The Sun Belt holds the key to the void between Florida and the rest of CUSA. Texas state is a gem in Texas, USA is a solid add hosting the senior bowl and top notch venue in Alabama, Most of CUSA couldn't hold Troy's water, Ga state is the king of marketz adds, App and GS bring history and a rivalry that rivals all rivalries, The ULs can duke it out with their instate just fine and geographically connect the east and far west. Ark state needs no introduction and CCU just won a D1 national title. We're all here for a reason.

Liberty is a stretch? The decision not to bring them into the conference waa due to the school presidents not wanting to associate with a "lower" tier school. Football fans want to associate with the better teams on the field and in the media. Presodents want to associate with the better academic schools, PR image,student profiles and endowments. The SBC includes some younger growing institutions that does not fit this criteria. Call it class superiority complex.

Okay well that's a good thing. CUSA is holding fast to the merits of image and it continues to take them down a bumpy road. Just two years ago merger conversations had zero merit. Take a look on the CUSA board and see page after page of debate about the merits. This while the Sun Belt full of freshman programs full of aspirations now has a solid lead in the latest Massey rankings. Again say what you will but the data is historically driven and is just another indication that their plan is not working. This is the reason any conversation regarding realignment struggle to gain traction. Egos are getting in the way of a bad business model.

Fans will not make any decision. I will stand by and watch, listen, and read if anything happens with a Conf USA, SBC merger. We can decide months, years from now who had the better perspective.

(06-09-2020 11:45 AM)APPdiesel Wrote:  What NEEDS to be happening right now...

*bbbring bbbbring*
ESPN: Hello, ESPN.
Keith Gill: "uh yes, ESPN? Just curious...if we could snatch two big brands from CUSA would you pay us more money?"

Unless the hypothetical CUSA additions will offset the difference in the CFP payout, this is a non-starter.

https://www.journalnow.com/sports/colleg...c849b.html

According to this article from Jan 2019, the Sun Belt (3rd) made $17.2m or roughly $1.7m per SBC program. CUSA (4th) brought in $15.6m or just over $1.11m per program while the MAC (5th) received $14m. That is a $600k difference per program between SBC & CUSA.

At a minimum, the 2 hypothetical CUSA programs would need to add $600k ($300k/per) annually to the current tv contract to keep the SBC in it's current position and I don't see that happening. Obviously this is all fluid with regards to G5 rankings/payouts but I don't see where adding any 2 programs is going to give the contract a boost to offset feeding more mouths.

Even if adding 2 programs helped elevate the conference to 1st or 2nd place G5, using the payouts from the article of $18.8m (2nd) to the AAC and $20.4m (1st) to the MWC, that is still less than what we currently get when feeding 12 mouths (2nd = $1.56m and 1st =$1.7m).

(06-09-2020 12:58 PM)moonshine Wrote:  

(06-09-2020 11:45 AM)APPdiesel Wrote:  What NEEDS to be happening right now...

*bbbring bbbbring*
ESPN: Hello, ESPN.
Keith Gill: "uh yes, ESPN? Just curious...if we could snatch two big brands from CUSA would you pay us more money?"

Unless the hypothetical CUSA additions will offset the difference in the CFP payout, this is a non-starter.

https://www.journalnow.com/sports/colleg...c849b.html

According to this article from Jan 2019, the Sun Belt (3rd) made $17.2m or roughly $1.7m per SBC program. CUSA (4th) brought in $15.6m or just over $1.11m per program while the MAC (5th) received $14m. That is a $600k difference per program between SBC & CUSA.

At a minimum, the 2 hypothetical CUSA programs would need to add $600k ($300k/per) annually to the current tv contract to keep the SBC in it's current position and I don't see that happening. Obviously this is all fluid with regards to G5 rankings/payouts but I don't see where adding any 2 programs is going to give the contract a boost to offset feeding more mouths.

Even if adding 2 programs helped elevate the conference to 1st or 2nd place G5, using the payouts from the article of $18.8m (2nd) to the AAC and $20.4m (1st) to the MWC, that is still less than what we currently get when feeding 12 mouths (2nd = $1.56m and 1st =$1.7m).

17.2M divided by 12 is 1.43M per team. Remember cusa has 14 mouths to feed. Also, even IF they don't directly get us more tv money 2 select teams could do a lot for travel costs and more importantly ticket sales for home games. It's not a simple equation. You bring in Marshall, USM, WKU, or someone the SBC want to see regularly and season ticket sales go up and usually walk ups. And good teams would raise the strength of schedule making a conference champ more likely to go to the Access Bowl gaining the conference an additional 4 to 6 Million.

What's the difference in travel costs to fly vs. drive per game for football? For other sports?

Adding two members probably reduces each sports' flights by one every other year on average. It's likely a break even situation at best. I'm not sure what current SBC members gain.

I'd love to have Marshall and Southern Miss... but hard to see that happening based on how much we all make with just 10 schools.

Keeping at 10 and maintaining our place ahead of the MAC and CUSA will eventually put all of us in a better spot athletically than the other conferences, simply because we have more money to spend. If the SBC were start beating out the MWC, and somehow the AAC... we'd be rolling. Doing that would also make our brand more attractive, thus more TV money.

(06-09-2020 02:50 PM)trueeagle98 Wrote:  ...even IF they don't directly get us more tv money 2 select teams could do a lot for travel costs and more importantly ticket sales for home games.

Not to mention significantly weakening a peer conference. As I said, a conversation would have to be had with ESPN to ascertain if stealing two big brands makes it financially advantageous.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(06-09-2020 10:44 PM)APPdiesel Wrote:  

(06-09-2020 02:50 PM)trueeagle98 Wrote:  ...even IF they don't directly get us more tv money 2 select teams could do a lot for travel costs and more importantly ticket sales for home games.

Not to mention significantly weakening a peer conference. As I said, a conversation would have to be had with ESPN to ascertain if stealing two big brands makes it financially advantageous.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(06-09-2020 10:44 PM)APPdiesel Wrote:  

(06-09-2020 02:50 PM)trueeagle98 Wrote:  ...even IF they don't directly get us more tv money 2 select teams could do a lot for travel costs and more importantly ticket sales for home games.

Not to mention significantly weakening a peer conference. As I said, a conversation would have to be had with ESPN to ascertain if stealing two big brands makes it financially advantageous.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

But if we don't get more money from TV we may not have enough of an advantage to entice those two CUSA programs we want. Travel costs can be estimated but real ticket sales increases can't so we really don't know if the travel savings would be enough spiting the TV and CFP money 12 ways instead of 10 to get two CUSA schools to jump.

(06-09-2020 03:57 PM)CardinalBlackTrojan Wrote:  I'd love to have Marshall and Southern Miss... but hard to see that happening based on how much we all make with just 10 schools.

Keeping at 10 and maintaining our place ahead of the MAC and CUSA will eventually put all of us in a better spot athletically than the other conferences, simply because we have more money to spend. If the SBC were start beating out the MWC, and somehow the AAC... we'd be rolling. Doing that would also make our brand more attractive, thus more TV money.

We should trade ULM and Costal for USM and Marshall .. honestly I just really want to pizz Tech off having ULM in their conference

(06-10-2020 08:00 AM)Cajun_lannister Wrote:  

(06-09-2020 03:57 PM)CardinalBlackTrojan Wrote:  I'd love to have Marshall and Southern Miss... but hard to see that happening based on how much we all make with just 10 schools.

Keeping at 10 and maintaining our place ahead of the MAC and CUSA will eventually put all of us in a better spot athletically than the other conferences, simply because we have more money to spend. If the SBC were start beating out the MWC, and somehow the AAC... we'd be rolling. Doing that would also make our brand more attractive, thus more TV money.

We should trade ULM and Costal for USM and Marshall .. honestly I just really want to pizz Tech off having ULM in their conference

Trade TxSt and ULM to CUSA and bring in Marshall and USM.

(06-09-2020 11:57 PM)deb025 Wrote:  

(06-09-2020 10:44 PM)APPdiesel Wrote:  

(06-09-2020 02:50 PM)trueeagle98 Wrote:  ...even IF they don't directly get us more tv money 2 select teams could do a lot for travel costs and more importantly ticket sales for home games.

Not to mention significantly weakening a peer conference. As I said, a conversation would have to be had with ESPN to ascertain if stealing two big brands makes it financially advantageous.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You won’t be invited.

(06-09-2020 11:57 PM)deb025 Wrote:  

(06-09-2020 10:44 PM)APPdiesel Wrote:  

(06-09-2020 02:50 PM)trueeagle98 Wrote:  ...even IF they don't directly get us more tv money 2 select teams could do a lot for travel costs and more importantly ticket sales for home games.

Not to mention significantly weakening a peer conference. As I said, a conversation would have to be had with ESPN to ascertain if stealing two big brands makes it financially advantageous.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This is what denial looks like

(06-10-2020 09:18 AM)trueeagle98 Wrote:  

(06-10-2020 08:00 AM)Cajun_lannister Wrote:  

(06-09-2020 03:57 PM)CardinalBlackTrojan Wrote:  I'd love to have Marshall and Southern Miss... but hard to see that happening based on how much we all make with just 10 schools.

Keeping at 10 and maintaining our place ahead of the MAC and CUSA will eventually put all of us in a better spot athletically than the other conferences, simply because we have more money to spend. If the SBC were start beating out the MWC, and somehow the AAC... we'd be rolling. Doing that would also make our brand more attractive, thus more TV money.

We should trade ULM and Costal for USM and Marshall .. honestly I just really want to pizz Tech off having ULM in their conference

Trade TxSt and ULM to CUSA and bring in Marshall and USM.

So, no UAB?

(06-10-2020 08:00 AM)Cajun_lannister Wrote:  

(06-09-2020 03:57 PM)CardinalBlackTrojan Wrote:  I'd love to have Marshall and Southern Miss... but hard to see that happening based on how much we all make with just 10 schools.

Keeping at 10 and maintaining our place ahead of the MAC and CUSA will eventually put all of us in a better spot athletically than the other conferences, simply because we have more money to spend. If the SBC were start beating out the MWC, and somehow the AAC... we'd be rolling. Doing that would also make our brand more attractive, thus more TV money.

We should trade ULM and Costal for USM and Marshall .. honestly I just really want to pizz Tech off having ULM in their conference

(06-10-2020 10:42 AM)JoeJag Wrote:  

(06-10-2020 09:18 AM)trueeagle98 Wrote:  

(06-10-2020 08:00 AM)Cajun_lannister Wrote:  

(06-09-2020 03:57 PM)CardinalBlackTrojan Wrote:  I'd love to have Marshall and Southern Miss... but hard to see that happening based on how much we all make with just 10 schools.

Keeping at 10 and maintaining our place ahead of the MAC and CUSA will eventually put all of us in a better spot athletically than the other conferences, simply because we have more money to spend. If the SBC were start beating out the MWC, and somehow the AAC... we'd be rolling. Doing that would also make our brand more attractive, thus more TV money.

We should trade ULM and Costal for USM and Marshall .. honestly I just really want to pizz Tech off having ULM in their conference

Trade TxSt and ULM to CUSA and bring in Marshall and USM.

So, no UAB?

As long as the University of Alabama has a stranglehold on what UAB does, I don't think so. If Alabama was able to shut down their football program once before, whose to say they won't try to do something like that again?

(06-10-2020 10:42 AM)JoeJag Wrote:  

(06-10-2020 09:18 AM)trueeagle98 Wrote:  

(06-10-2020 08:00 AM)Cajun_lannister Wrote:  

(06-09-2020 03:57 PM)CardinalBlackTrojan Wrote:  I'd love to have Marshall and Southern Miss... but hard to see that happening based on how much we all make with just 10 schools.

Keeping at 10 and maintaining our place ahead of the MAC and CUSA will eventually put all of us in a better spot athletically than the other conferences, simply because we have more money to spend. If the SBC were start beating out the MWC, and somehow the AAC... we'd be rolling. Doing that would also make our brand more attractive, thus more TV money.

We should trade ULM and Costal for USM and Marshall .. honestly I just really want to pizz Tech off having ULM in their conference

Trade TxSt and ULM to CUSA and bring in Marshall and USM.

So, no UAB?

I like UAB but USM makes more sense in this hypothetical scenario. It puts us in a new state but still is near another one of our schools to keep us in a geographically tight footprint. If one of the Alabama Schools or GSU were to leave UAB would be a perfect replacement.

(06-09-2020 08:03 AM)Florida RedWolf Wrote:  

(06-08-2020 09:37 AM)Oldyeller Wrote:  

(06-08-2020 06:33 AM)Florida RedWolf Wrote:  

(05-28-2020 10:06 PM)Oldyeller Wrote:  

(05-28-2020 09:09 PM)Georgia_Power_Company Wrote:  https://footballscoop.com/news/conferenc...lt-merger/

"Louisiana Tech AD Tommy McClelland said Thursday, Louisiana Tech wants no part of sharing a neighborhood with Louisiana-Lafayette.

“There is no conversation at Conference USA, nor is there any interest. I don’t know how direct I can be with that,” he said. “If I were in Lafayette’s position, I’d be figuring out a way to move up to a level like Conference USA, and so congratulations on that conversation."



Sent from my Lenovo TB-X304F using Tapatalk

This doesn't look good at this time anyway you cut it for La Tech. The only explanation that I can come up with is conversation is happening and he ain't in it.

He is saying what I have stated here. Conf USA wants to restructure in G5 but that doesn't mean the SBC. If any merger should ever see the light of day, I'm betting very few SBC schools would be involved. As a rule, Conf USA believes they have a superior group of schools (academics, image, money, athletics maybe) and do not care to associate with us. Like we did not want to associate with Liberty a few years back. Done of this may or may not be true but think it is their vision of the SBC That simple.

Meh not really. The Liberty comparison is a stretch. Follow the money. The Sun Belt holds the key to the void between Florida and the rest of CUSA. Texas state is a gem in Texas, USA is a solid add hosting the senior bowl and top notch venue in Alabama, Most of CUSA couldn't hold Troy's water, Ga state is the king of marketz adds, App and GS bring history and a rivalry that rivals all rivalries, The ULs can duke it out with their instate just fine and geographically connect the east and far west. Ark state needs no introduction and CCU just won a D1 national title. We're all here for a reason.

Liberty is a stretch? The decision not to bring them into the conference waa due to the school presidents not wanting to associate with a "lower" tier school. Football fans want to associate with the better teams on the field and in the media. Presodents want to associate with the better academic schools, PR image,student profiles and endowments. The SBC includes some younger growing institutions that does not fit this criteria. Call it class superiority complex.

I'm not sure how important that is to CUSA considering they took UTSA in the last round of realignment. UTSA has made a ton of progress in the last decade or so, but they are a university founded in the 70s that until 10-15 years ago had admission rates very close to 100%. I'd say they fit that description of a "younger growing institution".

(06-10-2020 11:54 AM)CardinalBlackTrojan Wrote:  

(06-10-2020 10:42 AM)JoeJag Wrote:  

(06-10-2020 09:18 AM)trueeagle98 Wrote:  

(06-10-2020 08:00 AM)Cajun_lannister Wrote:  

(06-09-2020 03:57 PM)CardinalBlackTrojan Wrote:  I'd love to have Marshall and Southern Miss... but hard to see that happening based on how much we all make with just 10 schools.

Keeping at 10 and maintaining our place ahead of the MAC and CUSA will eventually put all of us in a better spot athletically than the other conferences, simply because we have more money to spend. If the SBC were start beating out the MWC, and somehow the AAC... we'd be rolling. Doing that would also make our brand more attractive, thus more TV money.

We should trade ULM and Costal for USM and Marshall .. honestly I just really want to pizz Tech off having ULM in their conference

Trade TxSt and ULM to CUSA and bring in Marshall and USM.

So, no UAB?

As long as the University of Alabama has a stranglehold on what UAB does, I don't think so. If Alabama was able to shut down their football program once before, whose to say they won't try to do something like that again?

Not gonna happen.

And who says they will? For that matter, what if the State of Alabama decides to shut down Troy's and USA's football programs?

(06-10-2020 01:16 PM)JoeJag Wrote:  

(06-10-2020 11:54 AM)CardinalBlackTrojan Wrote:  

(06-10-2020 10:42 AM)JoeJag Wrote:  

(06-10-2020 09:18 AM)trueeagle98 Wrote:  

(06-10-2020 08:00 AM)Cajun_lannister Wrote:  We should trade ULM and Costal for USM and Marshall .. honestly I just really want to pizz Tech off having ULM in their conference

Trade TxSt and ULM to CUSA and bring in Marshall and USM.

So, no UAB?

As long as the University of Alabama has a stranglehold on what UAB does, I don't think so. If Alabama was able to shut down their football program once before, whose to say they won't try to do something like that again?

Not gonna happen.

And who says they will? For that matter, what if the State of Alabama decides to shut down Troy's and USA's football programs?

I didn't say they will. But it's still plausible.

And why would the State of Alabama shut down football programs? That's a university decision, not a state government decision. I was talking about the head honchos at the University of Alabama anyway.