(12-08-2012 01:22 AM)ECU-DMB Fanatic Wrote:  

(12-08-2012 01:13 AM)cyc46 Wrote:  I can see what some of these guys are saying for schools that are all sports members but ECU BSU and SDSU are selling certain sports down the river. In at least one case a major sport to that school. 1 to 2 million might not be that much when you consider that. ECU may suffer in baseball as well. Time will tell.

That is a point people keep trying to make about ECU and football only to the Big East being a detriment to our other sports. I just do not get this argument people are making. Lets say we do take our other sports to the CAA...Look at their basketball and other sports line-ups. It is not really any different than CUSA. The CAA is comprised of some pretty darn good Olympic sports schools. Basketball wise I really do not see CUSA as being a step above the CAA, if there is some difference it is pretty negligible.

I will give you the Baseball deal, clearly CUSA is a much better Baseball conference but lets be honest here..Baseball is not a revenue sport and thus would not be a deciding factor in this situation, and hell it may work out better for us anyway. We can dominate that league in Baseball, have a great record which would make it easier for us to host regionals and even super regionals due to our ranking. Hell, our best teams in recent history were when we played in the CAA.

Well you know how you NBE guys use the exposure arguement? You can definitely use the exposure arguement in CUSA versus the CAA. For all that it has lost CUSA still has a much better contract and is on tv much more frequently which in theory would help recruit better especially in basketball. As far as CUSA not being that much better than the CAA I would tend to disagree overall. However ECU is a program that until recently lived with a football/other sports split and it may not be as big of a deal to them. I am with MU that eventually (I will not go as far as to say BSU and SDSU will never play a down in NBE) the western teams will be gone.

(12-08-2012 01:36 AM)cyc46 Wrote:  

(12-08-2012 01:22 AM)ECU-DMB Fanatic Wrote:  

(12-08-2012 01:13 AM)cyc46 Wrote:  I can see what some of these guys are saying for schools that are all sports members but ECU BSU and SDSU are selling certain sports down the river. In at least one case a major sport to that school. 1 to 2 million might not be that much when you consider that. ECU may suffer in baseball as well. Time will tell.

That is a point people keep trying to make about ECU and football only to the Big East being a detriment to our other sports. I just do not get this argument people are making. Lets say we do take our other sports to the CAA...Look at their basketball and other sports line-ups. It is not really any different than CUSA. The CAA is comprised of some pretty darn good Olympic sports schools. Basketball wise I really do not see CUSA as being a step above the CAA, if there is some difference it is pretty negligible.

I will give you the Baseball deal, clearly CUSA is a much better Baseball conference but lets be honest here..Baseball is not a revenue sport and thus would not be a deciding factor in this situation, and hell it may work out better for us anyway. We can dominate that league in Baseball, have a great record which would make it easier for us to host regionals and even super regionals due to our ranking. Hell, our best teams in recent history were when we played in the CAA.

Well you know how you NBE guys use the exposure arguement? You can definitely use the exposure arguement in CUSA versus the CAA. For all that it has lost CUSA still has a much better contract and is on tv much more frequently which in theory would help recruit better especially in basketball. As far as CUSA not being that much better than the CAA I would tend to disagree overall. However ECU is a program that until recently lived with a football/other sports split and it may not be as big of a deal to them. I am with MU that eventually (I will not go as far as to say BSU and SDSU will never play a down in NBE) the western teams will be gone.

Who knows...Nothing surprises me about college athletics these days. But like I said in an earlier post, BSU and SDSU commitment to the Big East is solid until the TV negotiations are completed...The results of those negotiations are going to be the determining factor on how committed they stay. I think as long as the value of a football membership is 4 million dollars or more they will stay on board with the Big East unless someone like the PAC 12 or the Big 12 came calling.

ECU's exposure for Olympic sports in CUSA is very minimal....Very few baseball or basketball games are on TV. The situation for post season play is also very different for Olympic sports, if you win your conference you are in and have the chance to play for National Championship so conference membership in sports outside of football is not really that important because TV money for these sports is really not worth much at all in either CUSA or the CAA but you still have a chance to play for a National Championship if you win your league.

Now I am not trying to say we are better off with our Olympic sports in a league like the CAA but I also do not think it is as big of a negative as some here are trying to imply. In reality I think this argument will turn out to be a waste of time anyway as there is a decent chance we will end up with an all sports membership to the Big East before we would need to join another league.

The decision of accepting a football only membership into the Big East was a easy one for ECU....If you have a chance to increase your yearly TV revenue by 4 or more times at a school like ECU, you take the money and run...While this money does not represent the type of money schools in the "Big 5" conferences are getting it is still a huge upgrade for most CUSA level schools Athletic departments which are just treading water from a financial standpoint.

Boise keeps being brought up as kind of the bell cow that everyone is fighting over.....I like Boise because they broke the BCS barrier but one thing no one has mentioned is they did it with a lot of non qualifiers and once they join the Big East THAT WON"T BE ALLOWED any more!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Without the non qualifiers how good will Boise be?????? They got a number of good players from California that couldn't get into USC, UCLA, etc. So all the fighting over Boise may be for naught.......they may end up being a consistent 6-6 team in the future without those non qualifiers.

(12-08-2012 12:28 AM)ECU-DMB Fanatic Wrote:  

(12-07-2012 11:42 PM)MUHERD76 Wrote:  

(12-07-2012 11:37 PM)cyc46 Wrote:  Basically your damned if you do and damned if you don't. Maybe Cincy or UCONN will get out but everyone else will never really improve their overall situation drastically.

And that is exactly my point. The "Group of Five"....is what it is. The line has been drawn. Unless you get into the SEC, Pac, Big 10 etc. the move to another conference isn't really going to improve the overall situation drastically.

The only way we get access to the big game is to win our conference and finish as the highest ranked team. That goes for all of us in the Group of Five. A good example of this is Kent State.

I think you are looking at it in a little too simplistic terms. What is all the movement about from top to bottom? Money, and even though going to the Big East is not like reaching the promise land of College Football it will still represent an 4 to 5 fold increase in TV revenue. With budgets as tight as they are at our level of College Football this extra 3 to 4 million dollars a year is freaking huge.

Another aspect of it is public perception which helps in fan support which means more ticket and concession revenue...Also it will excite the fan base so you are looking at more donations as well.

Also the thought is since the Big East will probably be considered the strongest "Group of 5" conference and will be getting better TV coverage/revenue that this will help separate the Big East from the others a little over time.

Who knows if all of this will come to pass but just explaining the reasoning in general terms.

I don't think I'm being to simplistic in what I'm saying. Maybe it comes off as simplistic because its laden with boring facts? If you look at my original post you will see that I do think the Big East will make a few more TV dollars as long as UCONN/Boise stay around and assuming the basketball playing schools stay with the football schools.

That being said, with the exception of possibly a few more TV dollars the level of access is the same. Any school within the "Group of Five" that can run the table or have a one loss season will have a shot at that BCS bowl. It no longer matters what conference of the "Group of Five" you come from. Take a look at what Kent State did this year for proof out of the Mac.

Knowing that the rule was changing, I think CUSA took the right strategy of adding schools that are located in good markets that provide good regional rivalries. The model has changed....and I think CUSA made the right adjustments given the circumstances.

I don't have a problem with the nCUSA, we made good choices based on what was available. Realignment will not be over until the in crowd decides they are finished. Then the rest of us wait until the tv money is in place and Then the nnBE, MWC, CUSA and SBC make their final moves (until the next time). The key for the rest of us is If nnBE $$$ is not there.

(12-08-2012 09:05 AM)MUHERD76 Wrote:  

(12-08-2012 12:28 AM)ECU-DMB Fanatic Wrote:  

(12-07-2012 11:42 PM)MUHERD76 Wrote:  

(12-07-2012 11:37 PM)cyc46 Wrote:  Basically your damned if you do and damned if you don't. Maybe Cincy or UCONN will get out but everyone else will never really improve their overall situation drastically.

And that is exactly my point. The "Group of Five"....is what it is. The line has been drawn. Unless you get into the SEC, Pac, Big 10 etc. the move to another conference isn't really going to improve the overall situation drastically.

The only way we get access to the big game is to win our conference and finish as the highest ranked team. That goes for all of us in the Group of Five. A good example of this is Kent State.

I think you are looking at it in a little too simplistic terms. What is all the movement about from top to bottom? Money, and even though going to the Big East is not like reaching the promise land of College Football it will still represent an 4 to 5 fold increase in TV revenue. With budgets as tight as they are at our level of College Football this extra 3 to 4 million dollars a year is freaking huge.

Another aspect of it is public perception which helps in fan support which means more ticket and concession revenue...Also it will excite the fan base so you are looking at more donations as well.

Also the thought is since the Big East will probably be considered the strongest "Group of 5" conference and will be getting better TV coverage/revenue that this will help separate the Big East from the others a little over time.

Who knows if all of this will come to pass but just explaining the reasoning in general terms.

I don't think I'm being to simplistic in what I'm saying. Maybe it comes off as simplistic because its laden with boring facts? If you look at my original post you will see that I do think the Big East will make a few more TV dollars as long as UCONN/Boise stay around and assuming the basketball playing schools stay with the football schools.

That being said, with the exception of possibly a few more TV dollars the level of access is the same. Any school within the "Group of Five" that can run the table or have a one loss season will have a shot at that BCS bowl. It no longer matters what conference of the "Group of Five" you come from. Take a look at what Kent State did this year for proof out of the Mac.

Knowing that the rule was changing, I think CUSA took the right strategy of adding schools that are located in good markets that provide good regional rivalries. The model has changed....and I think CUSA made the right adjustments given the circumstances.

Yes you are looking at it in simplistic terms if you really think the only difference between CUSA and the Big East is a "few TV dollars". Did you even read my post...Sure the access part is the same but that is one team out of over 60 that is going to benefit from the access...What you have to look at is what a conference will provide you year and and year out no matter what your performance is each year.

TV revenue difference is going to be significant between CUSA and the Big East...You keep say a little TV revenue trying to minimize the gap. Basically in a 5 year period a CUSA school will get 6 million dollars in TV revenue, conversely a football only school in the Big East during this same period will at least make about 20 million and it could be more.....That is a huge difference, 14 million dollars is not just a "few TV dollars". Sure, the TV contract in the Big East will not be at the level some were hoping for a few months ago but it still will represent a significant increase for the new member.

There are other factors that will benefit the Big East schools but I will not get into all of that right now as this thread is mainly focused on TV revenue.

Or you could use Shockerbobs arguement and say that since the NBE is setting the market in 2013 that when CUSA gets to renegotiate in 2016 they should see an increase in income also. NBE will by that time be locked in a deal for a undetermined amount of time so any gains maybe only for a short time. Also not to mention the entrance and exit fees (which once again has come back to arguement but I refer you to the Orlando Sentinel article).

(12-08-2012 10:32 AM)cyc46 Wrote:  Or you could use Shockerbobs arguement and say that since the NBE is setting the market in 2013 that when CUSA gets to renegotiate in 2016 they should see an increase in income also. NBE will by that time be locked in a deal for a undetermined amount of time so any gains maybe only for a short time. Also not to mention the entrance and exit fees (which once again has come back to arguement but I refer you to the Orlando Sentinel article).

No doubt the exit and entry fees play a big role as well. All the departing schools are looking at paying 7Million to get out and 5 Million to enter. Essentially a 12 Million investment to enter a league that is on the same level and has the same exact access to the BCS.




http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012...-exit-fees

" UCF, Houston, Memphis and SMU will move to the Big East before the 2013-14 season. They are each contractually obligated to pay their annual share of television revenue under Conference USA's dual contracts with Fox Sports Network and CBS Sports for five years and an additional one-time $500,000 fee. That totals about $7 million.


Part of having these great relationships and having really good meetings is acting professionally," Conference USA Commissioner Britton Banowsky said. "And as part of that, we expect everyone to follow the bylaws and pay the exit fees. … Our sense is that the transition is going smoothly."

In the past, Conference USA has been willing to trade games with remaining members for reduced exit fees. Banowsky said this time around, though, the league will not be negotiating reduced fees in exchange for non conference games.

"We did that last time because we wanted to retain as much value as possible while negotiating television contracts, and it's something our members really wanted, but I'm not hearing that this time around," Banowsky said. "I think there is a lot of interest in these universities and natural rivals playing each other, but we haven't talked about tying it to a policy."

Banowsky said he didn't recall the timeline for the payments, but they are broken up into installments."



.

(12-08-2012 10:01 AM)ECU-DMB Fanatic Wrote:  

(12-08-2012 09:05 AM)MUHERD76 Wrote:  

(12-08-2012 12:28 AM)ECU-DMB Fanatic Wrote:  

(12-07-2012 11:42 PM)MUHERD76 Wrote:  

(12-07-2012 11:37 PM)cyc46 Wrote:  Basically your damned if you do and damned if you don't. Maybe Cincy or UCONN will get out but everyone else will never really improve their overall situation drastically.

And that is exactly my point. The "Group of Five"....is what it is. The line has been drawn. Unless you get into the SEC, Pac, Big 10 etc. the move to another conference isn't really going to improve the overall situation drastically.

The only way we get access to the big game is to win our conference and finish as the highest ranked team. That goes for all of us in the Group of Five. A good example of this is Kent State.

I think you are looking at it in a little too simplistic terms. What is all the movement about from top to bottom? Money, and even though going to the Big East is not like reaching the promise land of College Football it will still represent an 4 to 5 fold increase in TV revenue. With budgets as tight as they are at our level of College Football this extra 3 to 4 million dollars a year is freaking huge.

Another aspect of it is public perception which helps in fan support which means more ticket and concession revenue...Also it will excite the fan base so you are looking at more donations as well.

Also the thought is since the Big East will probably be considered the strongest "Group of 5" conference and will be getting better TV coverage/revenue that this will help separate the Big East from the others a little over time.

Who knows if all of this will come to pass but just explaining the reasoning in general terms.

I don't think I'm being to simplistic in what I'm saying. Maybe it comes off as simplistic because its laden with boring facts? If you look at my original post you will see that I do think the Big East will make a few more TV dollars as long as UCONN/Boise stay around and assuming the basketball playing schools stay with the football schools.

That being said, with the exception of possibly a few more TV dollars the level of access is the same. Any school within the "Group of Five" that can run the table or have a one loss season will have a shot at that BCS bowl. It no longer matters what conference of the "Group of Five" you come from. Take a look at what Kent State did this year for proof out of the Mac.

Knowing that the rule was changing, I think CUSA took the right strategy of adding schools that are located in good markets that provide good regional rivalries. The model has changed....and I think CUSA made the right adjustments given the circumstances.

Yes you are looking at it in simplistic terms if you really think the only difference between CUSA and the Big East is a "few TV dollars". Did you even read my post...Sure the access part is the same but that is one team out of over 60 that is going to benefit from the access...What you have to look at is what a conference will provide you year and and year out no matter what your performance is each year.

TV revenue difference is going to be significant between CUSA and the Big East...You keep say a little TV revenue trying to minimize the gap. Basically in a 5 year period a CUSA school will get 6 million dollars in TV revenue, conversely a football only school in the Big East during this same period will at least make about 20 million and it could be more.....That is a huge difference, 14 million dollars is not just a "few TV dollars". Sure, the TV contract in the Big East will not be at the level some were hoping for a few months ago but it still will represent a significant increase for the new member.

There are other factors that will benefit the Big East schools but I will not get into all of that right now as this thread is mainly focused on TV revenue.

We'll just have to see what happens. I'm not convinced that the TV deal will be as big as you are hoping. Maybe it will, maybe it wont. Time will tell.

The Big East knows it won't be included. That isn't why the goal is a nationwide conference. The reason for that is tv $. Eventually all conferences will be nationwide when its 16 16 16 16

I still think the mega-merger of MWC-CUSA-Big East would have been better for all involved. Everyone would have been better off than they will be now, with a handful of exceptions. I guess in part I feel that way because I like logical regional conferences and traditional rivalries more than I care about being one or two rungs up in the perceived conference pecking order, especially when NONE of the conferences will be considered a major conference.

But it's too late for that, I guess.

(12-08-2012 01:01 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  I still think the mega-merger of MWC-CUSA-Big East would have been better for all involved. Everyone would have been better off than they will be now, with a handful of exceptions. I guess in part I feel that way because I like logical regional conferences and traditional rivalries more than I care about being one or two rungs up in the perceived conference pecking order, especially when NONE of the conferences will be considered a major conference.

But it's too late for that, I guess.

We're cutting the fat

(12-08-2012 01:12 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  

(12-08-2012 01:01 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  I still think the mega-merger of MWC-CUSA-Big East would have been better for all involved. Everyone would have been better off than they will be now, with a handful of exceptions. I guess in part I feel that way because I like logical regional conferences and traditional rivalries more than I care about being one or two rungs up in the perceived conference pecking order, especially when NONE of the conferences will be considered a major conference.

But it's too late for that, I guess.

We're cutting the fat

LOL. Yep...cutting the fat by adding SMU, Tulane...

(12-08-2012 11:23 AM)MUHERD76 Wrote:  

(12-08-2012 10:32 AM)cyc46 Wrote:  Or you could use Shockerbobs arguement and say that since the NBE is setting the market in 2013 that when CUSA gets to renegotiate in 2016 they should see an increase in income also. NBE will by that time be locked in a deal for a undetermined amount of time so any gains maybe only for a short time. Also not to mention the entrance and exit fees (which once again has come back to arguement but I refer you to the Orlando Sentinel article).

No doubt the exit and entry fees play a big role as well. All the departing schools are looking at paying 7Million to get out and 5 Million to enter. Essentially a 12 Million investment to enter a league that is on the same level and has the same exact access to the BCS. There is also no "founding member" discount. Everyone has the same exit fee.




http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012...-exit-fees

" UCF, Houston, Memphis and SMU will move to the Big East before the 2013-14 season. They are each contractually obligated to pay their annual share of television revenue under Conference USA's dual contracts with Fox Sports Network and CBS Sports for five years and an additional one-time $500,000 fee. That totals about $7 million.


Part of having these great relationships and having really good meetings is acting professionally," Conference USA Commissioner Britton Banowsky said. "And as part of that, we expect everyone to follow the bylaws and pay the exit fees. … Our sense is that the transition is going smoothly."

In the past, Conference USA has been willing to trade games with remaining members for reduced exit fees. Banowsky said this time around, though, the league will not be negotiating reduced fees in exchange for non conference games.

"We did that last time because we wanted to retain as much value as possible while negotiating television contracts, and it's something our members really wanted, but I'm not hearing that this time around," Banowsky said. "I think there is a lot of interest in these universities and natural rivals playing each other, but we haven't talked about tying it to a policy."

Banowsky said he didn't recall the timeline for the payments, but they are broken up into installments."



.

I think the whole 7 million dollar exit fee myth has been debunked. The exit fee is 500k plus any LOST TV revenue to the conference that is attributable to the exiting school. Since the contract is not decreasing--the exit fee is 500k. If the contract decreases, the amount of the decrease will be divided among the exiting schools and added to the 500k exit fee. There is not going to be a 7 million dollar exit fee per school. There is also no special "founders discount" on the exit fee. Everyone has the same exit fee.

(12-07-2012 11:08 PM)MUHERD76 Wrote:  Its somewhat funny because the only reason the MWC and CUSA even considered going this route originally was to try and get inclusion into the old BCS system.

That's not the reason. They did it to get the strongest TV deal they could, and to align with the strongest universities and athletic programs they could. They tried to expand the BCS access, sure. Now the MWC may have tried to get in for a while (and they didn't participate with the Cowen-led movement to expand access). But the Alliance movement was largely after the BCS was already dead.
That approach has been voted out, and the regional approach commands the majority, and thus some Presidents are working the phones to get out. Marshall likes the regional approach and that approach now has control over C-USA.

(12-07-2012 11:51 PM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  For UCF it is a no-brainier. We get into a conference with rival USF.

I thought UCF to the Big East made perfect sense, same with ECU. The other CUSA teams, not so much. Now it has turned in to a game of musical chairs & you don't want to be the one left standing.

(12-08-2012 11:26 AM)MUHERD76 Wrote:  

(12-08-2012 10:01 AM)ECU-DMB Fanatic Wrote:  

(12-08-2012 09:05 AM)MUHERD76 Wrote:  

(12-08-2012 12:28 AM)ECU-DMB Fanatic Wrote:  

(12-07-2012 11:42 PM)MUHERD76 Wrote:  And that is exactly my point. The "Group of Five"....is what it is. The line has been drawn. Unless you get into the SEC, Pac, Big 10 etc. the move to another conference isn't really going to improve the overall situation drastically.

The only way we get access to the big game is to win our conference and finish as the highest ranked team. That goes for all of us in the Group of Five. A good example of this is Kent State.

I think you are looking at it in a little too simplistic terms. What is all the movement about from top to bottom? Money, and even though going to the Big East is not like reaching the promise land of College Football it will still represent an 4 to 5 fold increase in TV revenue. With budgets as tight as they are at our level of College Football this extra 3 to 4 million dollars a year is freaking huge.

Another aspect of it is public perception which helps in fan support which means more ticket and concession revenue...Also it will excite the fan base so you are looking at more donations as well.

Also the thought is since the Big East will probably be considered the strongest "Group of 5" conference and will be getting better TV coverage/revenue that this will help separate the Big East from the others a little over time.

Who knows if all of this will come to pass but just explaining the reasoning in general terms.

I don't think I'm being to simplistic in what I'm saying. Maybe it comes off as simplistic because its laden with boring facts? If you look at my original post you will see that I do think the Big East will make a few more TV dollars as long as UCONN/Boise stay around and assuming the basketball playing schools stay with the football schools.

That being said, with the exception of possibly a few more TV dollars the level of access is the same. Any school within the "Group of Five" that can run the table or have a one loss season will have a shot at that BCS bowl. It no longer matters what conference of the "Group of Five" you come from. Take a look at what Kent State did this year for proof out of the Mac.

Knowing that the rule was changing, I think CUSA took the right strategy of adding schools that are located in good markets that provide good regional rivalries. The model has changed....and I think CUSA made the right adjustments given the circumstances.

Yes you are looking at it in simplistic terms if you really think the only difference between CUSA and the Big East is a "few TV dollars". Did you even read my post...Sure the access part is the same but that is one team out of over 60 that is going to benefit from the access...What you have to look at is what a conference will provide you year and and year out no matter what your performance is each year.

TV revenue difference is going to be significant between CUSA and the Big East...You keep say a little TV revenue trying to minimize the gap. Basically in a 5 year period a CUSA school will get 6 million dollars in TV revenue, conversely a football only school in the Big East during this same period will at least make about 20 million and it could be more.....That is a huge difference, 14 million dollars is not just a "few TV dollars". Sure, the TV contract in the Big East will not be at the level some were hoping for a few months ago but it still will represent a significant increase for the new member.

There are other factors that will benefit the Big East schools but I will not get into all of that right now as this thread is mainly focused on TV revenue.

We'll just have to see what happens. I'm not convinced that the TV deal will be as big as you are hoping. Maybe it will, maybe it wont. Time will tell.

I am not hoping about anything...By all reports the low number is 60 million but it could be more. Not sure what there is to be convinced about...

(12-08-2012 07:17 PM)Tulsafanzz Wrote:  

(12-07-2012 11:51 PM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  For UCF it is a no-brainier. We get into a conference with rival USF.

I thought UCF to the Big East made perfect sense, same with ECU. The other CUSA teams, not so much. Now it has turned in to a game of musical chairs & you don't want to be the one left standing.

What you are seeing is one of the reasons teams leave. Its not just that they have a chance to slightly improve thier situation---its because they know if they do not move, other teams will take thier place and they will then be left behind in a worse situation. What people typically fail to understand is that once the realignment merry-go-round begins, status quo is no longer an option.

(12-08-2012 05:31 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-08-2012 11:23 AM)MUHERD76 Wrote:  

(12-08-2012 10:32 AM)cyc46 Wrote:  Or you could use Shockerbobs arguement and say that since the NBE is setting the market in 2013 that when CUSA gets to renegotiate in 2016 they should see an increase in income also. NBE will by that time be locked in a deal for a undetermined amount of time so any gains maybe only for a short time. Also not to mention the entrance and exit fees (which once again has come back to arguement but I refer you to the Orlando Sentinel article).

No doubt the exit and entry fees play a big role as well. All the departing schools are looking at paying 7Million to get out and 5 Million to enter. Essentially a 12 Million investment to enter a league that is on the same level and has the same exact access to the BCS. There is also no "founding member" discount. Everyone has the same exit fee.




http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012...-exit-fees

" UCF, Houston, Memphis and SMU will move to the Big East before the 2013-14 season. They are each contractually obligated to pay their annual share of television revenue under Conference USA's dual contracts with Fox Sports Network and CBS Sports for five years and an additional one-time $500,000 fee. That totals about $7 million.


Part of having these great relationships and having really good meetings is acting professionally," Conference USA Commissioner Britton Banowsky said. "And as part of that, we expect everyone to follow the bylaws and pay the exit fees. … Our sense is that the transition is going smoothly."

In the past, Conference USA has been willing to trade games with remaining members for reduced exit fees. Banowsky said this time around, though, the league will not be negotiating reduced fees in exchange for non conference games.

"We did that last time because we wanted to retain as much value as possible while negotiating television contracts, and it's something our members really wanted, but I'm not hearing that this time around," Banowsky said. "I think there is a lot of interest in these universities and natural rivals playing each other, but we haven't talked about tying it to a policy."

Banowsky said he didn't recall the timeline for the payments, but they are broken up into installments."



.

I think the whole 7 million dollar exit fee myth has been debunked. The exit fee is 500k plus any LOST TV revenue to the conference that is attributable to the exiting school. Since the contract is not decreasing--the exit fee is 500k. If the contract decreases, the amount of the decrease will be divided among the exiting schools and added to the 500k exit fee. There is not going to be a 7 million dollar exit fee per school. There is also no special "founders discount" on the exit fee. Everyone has the same exit fee.

Got a link for the aforementioned debunking?

(12-08-2012 08:10 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-08-2012 07:17 PM)Tulsafanzz Wrote:  

(12-07-2012 11:51 PM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  For UCF it is a no-brainier. We get into a conference with rival USF.

I thought UCF to the Big East made perfect sense, same with ECU. The other CUSA teams, not so much. Now it has turned in to a game of musical chairs & you don't want to be the one left standing.

What you are seeing is one of the reasons teams leave. Its not just that they have a chance to slightly improve thier situation---its because they know if they do not move, other teams will take thier place and they will then be left behind in a worse situation. What people typically fail to understand is that once the realignment merry-go-round begins, status quo is no longer an option.

We didn't want to leave USM, Marshall, Tulsa, and UTEP. We just cant stand pat and be in the same conference as UTSA,FIU,FAU,UNT etc. Two years ago we never would of considered moving to the sunbelt. But now, CUSA is the sunbelt. Those are not our peers. Our peers moved on to the nBE and I am glad we received the same opportunity.

I hope USM, UTEP, and Tulsa get an out shortly. They deserve better.