I would like unbiased info on TCU's move from CUSA to the MWC. What were the driving forces for the move?

To make a long story short, TCU knew CUSA was getting raided by the BE and instead of staying they decided to move to the next best option......MWC!

In hindsight, I think that the admin. at TCU just felt that with the departure of Louisville, UC and USF and with the pending additions of SMU, Tulsa and Rice that CUSA was just not the same animal that we had signed on to be with. I really think that the roots of these feelings go all the way back to the rivalries of the old SWC and how TCU now feels that they have made the investments and strides necessary to seperate themselves from old rivals such as Houston, SMU and Rice. You certainly may consider us to be "high and mighty" in our attitude if you wish but I think we just want to be in a different place than everyone else for right now. Do the TCU fans miss the old CUSA lineup? Some do, some don't.

TCU to the MWC and Marshall to CUSA are two moves that might look good in the short term, but very stupid long term. I can't believe these college presidents can ignore those travel expenses. Once a major recession hits and the TV networks cut back on these crazy TV deals, the TCU's, LA Tech's, and Marshall's will have to reconsider their conferences.

OUBOBCATJOHN Wrote:TCU to the MWC and Marshall to CUSA are two moves that might look good in the short term, but very stupid long term. I can't believe these college presidents can ignore those travel expenses. Once a major recession hits and the TV networks cut back on these crazy TV deals, the TCU's, LA Tech's, and Marshall's will have to reconsider their conferences.

Actually I think Marshall's move to CUSA was not bad at all.

Marshall has a 40k stadium that is a class above what most MAC schools can offer........most CUSA schools are 40k or 50k while MAC is 25k to 30k.

Playing conference games in Texas and Florida helps with recruiting too.

I could only wish, but I think this lineup would be pretty sweet.

TCU
Houston
Tulane
Southern Miss.
Memphis
Marshall
Ohio
MU
UAB
Central Florida

Top to bottom that would be as good as the Mountain West.......TCU, So.Miss, and Houston in football.....Memphis, UAB and Ohio in basketball.

OUBOBCATJOHN Wrote:TCU to the MWC and Marshall to CUSA are two moves that might look good in the short term, but very stupid long term. I can't believe these college presidents can ignore those travel expenses. Once a major recession hits and the TV networks cut back on these crazy TV deals, the TCU's, LA Tech's, and Marshall's will have to reconsider their conferences.

I think U could argue that for TCU... $$$$ wise they basically went sideways... as for Marshall they went from something like 300k to over a mil from conf revenue... that more than covers the switch.

you really can't fault TCU for joining the MWC, as thier program has grown their membership through the WAC - CUSA - MWC has taken them to the best non-bcs conference. Thier best shot at joining a BCS conference is the MWC. TCU is only looking out for their best interests nothing anyone else wouldn't do to get to a BCS conference. I hated that they left CUSA but they did and are making the most of it.

You can't really argue with results.

Aside from the way they've had a great run personally (FB W-L record since LT was there). They have steadily moved from a lower rated (lower respected) conference to a conference with better national appeal, with each and every move since the SWC broke up.

When the SWC was raided by the SEC (for Arkansas) and Big8 (for Texas, TexasA&M, TexasTexch and Baylor), the best competitive option available to them was to join the likes of BYU, Utah, AF, ColState etc. There were enough good teams in that conference to still get on TV, get noticed, etc.

The problem was that the WAC16 got too unweildly - and the strongest teams left. When the WAC16 was crumbling from its own internal weight, C-USA was gaining strength with L'ville/SoMiss/ECU/Cincinnati FB and the L'ville/Marquette/Cincinnati/Charlotte BB programs. Compared to the WAC10 (If memory serves me right on the number of teams in the WAC at the time), C-USA offered momentum and growth and stability. I think they expected that C-USA would gain Marshall in the near future too. But I don't think they expected that the ACC would gut the BigEast, and that the BigEast would turn around and take almost every team that was making a mark for itself in FB or BB from C-USA (well, Charlotte went to the A-10 actually).

The C-USA-6's grab for unproven or long dormant commodities (UCF, SMU, Rice, Tulsa, etc) combined with such significant losses in FB and BB didn't appeal to TCU. The eventual C-USA-12 line-up wasn't a shadow of what C-USA was becoming prior to that. By any measure, in either FB or BB performance, that has turned out to be true.

The only relative successes that C-USA has had is in (1) retaining bowl game numbers and in (2) not losing the TV contract they had already negotiated. Their SOS, W-L record and Bowl line up in FB took a huge hit, as did their conference ranking, number of NCAA invites, number of NIT invites, etc in BB. On the field and on the court, C-USA is clearly not what is was - nor what the MWC9 is now. Each year, the MWC wins more games against the BCS than any of the other non-BCS conferences - even with fewer teams.

The MWC's invite to TCU to become part of the conference (and maybe with a promise by the MWC to then stop expanding for a while) meant that the schedule would be considerable more respectable (Utah, AF, BYU, ColState etc) than either a return to a shrinking WAC or staying in C-USA would have offered.

You have to remmeber, C-USA was losing their premiere FB teams (except SoMiss) and almost every good BB team at the time (although Memphis stepped up soon after that). It was also adding a whole bunch of pretty bad WAC and MAC schools (Marshall FB was the perceived exception - but actually ended up nose-diving pretty suddenly at the time of the move).

You can not unbiasedly look at the MWC9's performance in FB or BB and not come to the conclusion that competitvely TCU made the best choice available to them.

Could C-USA someday become a conference with strong FB or BB momentum again? Sure - maybe. Could the WAC gain in presteige on the strength of BoiseSt, FresnoSt and Hawaii? Sure - maybe. But right now, the MWC is a far cry better than staying in C-USA or re-joining the WAC would have been.

And for those who claim that Marshall is better off financially in C-USA then they were in the MAC:
- the $700,000/year difference in revenue is more than eaten up by the increased travel costs to send every school team at Marshall, from FB to BB to women's softball, to track and field) to their conference games (not that it's a large sum of money by university budget standards anyway).
- All those "additional" C-USA bowls are minimum pay-out bowls anyway - and while money left over after costs is generally revenue that is shared with every conference institution, there is rarely any significant money left over afterwards to divide up.
- the extra BB revenue from NCAA performance is based on historical C-USA success (L'ville, Cincinnati, Marquette, Charlotte), in the NCAA's and will be drying up soon since they're fast becoming a one-bid conference.

Cool,but a couple of things to consider.

TCU will very likely try to jump conferences again. They seem to have little allegience to anyone.

CUSA was hurt badly by the last realignment. It actually helped to increase the strenght in baseball. Basketball, and football were both hurt, as at the same time some programs were undergoing temporary hard times. Example UAB in basketball, and ECU in football. Expect CUSA to get stronger, and more competitive on a national scale.

CUSA certainly dropped in basketball. I can't say that TCU impressed anyone at the time, or now, as being motivated in the least by basketball. In football, CUSA lost Louisville, period, to the Big East. Cincinnati and USF had never accomplished spit in football nor shown any reason for optimism. Cincy was wanted for its top flight basketball program, and USF, well, they were wanted strictly for where they were, i.e. the Big East wanted a Florida team. The Big East had to get back to 8 schools in football, any 8, they grabbed these programs as football warm bodies and hoped & prayed that Tranghese could manage to hang onto the BCS autobid, which he barely did. That conference sweated that decision out until it was made.

OUBOBCATJOHN Wrote:TCU to the MWC and Marshall to CUSA are two moves that might look good in the short term, but very stupid long term. I can't believe these college presidents can ignore those travel expenses.

Travel expense was NOT a major factor for TCU. Yes, it did go up -- by about $200,000 annually. That's a drop in the bucket. TCU looked at how MWC schedules for all sports, and American Airlines put together a research package for TCU that showed costs for flights to all MWC destinations. Did you know it's far cheaper for TCU to charter a 747 and land it in Colorado Springs than it is to fly into Missisippi and then travel to Hattiesburg?

What everybody thinks they know isn't necessarily so. TCU's A.D. at the time -- Eric Hyman, now at South Carolina -- was talking with Tranghese and the Big East during the time of Banowsky's total silence, trying to get a merger between C-USA and the Big East. At one point, he thought he had it done, but then BE presidents worried about travel. American Airlines pointed out that Fort Worth was actually a shorter trip from the Northeast than was Miami. That was a shocker to me.

TCU also looked to travel time/lost class time. That was a negative, but not as excessive as first feared. They also consulted the Kinesiology Department about the effects of altitude. They came back with the determination that football was no problem, but altitude would come into play in constant-motion sports, like basketball. (As bad as TCU is in basketball, what difference does that make?)

In the end, TCU was going to make almost $2M a year more in conference revenue with the MWC, than with the C-USA contract at that time. When you're a private school funding yourself, that speaks loudly. ESPN execs were telling TCU that C-USA would not be renewed at its current contract. (At that point, CSTV was not a consideration.) The difference was going to be even more than projections.

After CSTV came into the picture, MWC revenues went up. But, CSTV also helped C-USA maintain its contracts at the time, filling in the difference that ESPN negotiated down.

Also, TCU had to look at what kind of football would be present in each conference. BYU is a major drawing card. Utah was up there right behind them. AFA is an attractive football mate. And Colorado State was doing well at that time. Meanwhile, C-USA was top football programs and bringing in the cellar-dwellers of the WAC. (Not to mention that C-USA basketball was absolutely decimated.) It was a no-brainer.

Hyman asked the presidents to not go to 12, bring in Marshall and Tulsa and have a nine-team conference. Quality over quantity. The presidents were already set in their decision, and they talked TCU's new provost into voting with them for 12 teams. When the new provost made the first public comments about the new C-USA, the crap hit the fan. Major donors threatened to pull their funding.

Finally, there was bad blood brewing in C-USA. If you remember, TCU was undefeated and going into USM on a Thursday night season-ender. Weeks before, it was realized that C-USA had no written rules about how the money would be divided if TCU made the BCS. Theoretically, any C-USA team that made it at the time could have kept every dime. Dave Maggard at UH was leading the beelyaching. C-USA presidents amended their withdrawal-from-conference rules for all the schools that left for the Big East and Atlantic 10. Then, they changed them right back to their much more strict origins to try to keep TCU from leaving.

TCU never contacted the MWC. MWC coaches and ADs were wanting nine teams, to balance football scheduling. They got their approval from the presidents to "begin a search." The UNM AD later admitted that expansion talk was, from the very beginning, all about TCU and nobody else. MWC faxed its official offer, and six weeks later TCU accepted. MWC gave TCU full voting rights immediately, even though it wouldn't be an official member for another year.

Financially, TCU has benefitted from the MWC. As for football quality, it benefitted from the MWC. As for exposure, it was definitely hurt by the MWC. As for basketball, it's a wash because both the MWC and the new C-USA were not beneficial moves. For baseball, it definitely hurt in quality of opponents in the MWC, but it's a near-automatic conference title each year. Baseball is a "non-revenue" sport anyway, so that really doesn't figure into the equation.

Smackdown,

What about the rumors that TCU put out feelers when it looked like the Tulane sports program may go under after Katrina?

It very well could have just been an avenue to rebuild relationships in case you ever need them again, but I think as you said, BB and CUSA surprised folks with the revenues and the east coast basis is again helping football return (got a shoot at having 2 or 3 team getting votes and being in top 35 at end of year). Get basketball fixed and CUSA could be pulling back close to where it was. With rumors of UNM putting feelers out when UTEP was invited, you think TCU might ever return? I know they loved the east coast attention. I for one wished TCU had stayed but also enjoy having UTEP. I think if Big East ever raids CUSA again, you could see UNM and TCU join/rejoin CUSA especially with ESPN and CUSA rebuilding its relationship as evident through ESPN giving Bham bowl to CUSA and Big East (two conferences it wants to do well).

Honestly, I couldn't tell you whether or not they put out feelers after the Katrina thing. I can see them doing it, because they are trying to stay abreast of what's going on and are trying to read the future. But, they are coming out much better financially in the MWC, so I don't believe for a second that they were looking for a door to open for them from C-USA.

There were some VERY bitter feelings between TCU and C-USA in the end. Led by UH and Maggard's snide comments, C-USA held a secret vote to change back to the high-dollar exit fees after it let all those schools go to the Big East and A-10. It was all directed at TCU, and I assure members of the administration were madder than hell! C-USA basically assured TCU of leaving at that point, regardless.

The one school that TCU had a good relationship with was Memphis. It was a pretty tight relationship. But, I'm not at liberty to explain anymore than that.

You said, "It very well could have just been an avenue to rebuild relationships in case you ever need them again." That's almost assuredly what any "feelers" were about.

Financially, TCU is much better off in the MWC. And, being a private school, that counts significantly. As for exposure, TCU definitely misses that -- at least it's fanbase does.

But let me explain.

Former A.D. Eric Hyman (now South Carolina) was really a proponent of that Eastern exposure. That was the ONLY thing he had reservations about in making the move. At the same time, TCU was under new leadership and a new plan -- to limit the enrollment of the school in an academic improvement effort -- and was rejecting thousands of applications at that point anyway. So, there was feeling on the board that the loss of Eastern exposure wasn't going to hurt much. (TCU draws a lot of students from the Midwest, east of the Plains.)

So, the improved finances of the MWC, and the fact that it was basically unanimous across the country in the leaders and experts that TCU consulted that it would be better off football wise in quality and prestige by being in the MWC, all made it a necessary move.

(Keep in mind too that MWC Commissioner Craig Thompson seemed to be active, organized. Britton Banowsky was running the C-USA offices in Chicago from his bedroom in Flower Mound, Texas, and appeared to be doing nothing but trying to save a conference of some kind so that he would still have a job as a commissioner. Banowsky didn't like it that Hyman tried to consolidate the remnants of C-USA with the Big East, because he wouldn't have had a job. And, TCU wasn't the only school in C-USA that was upset with the way Banowsky was hiding under the table when all hell was breaking loose.)

TCU is getting a lot of bitching from its hardcore fanbase about TV exposure. And, it just blows me away!

When TCU was in the SWC, it's games were rarely on TV. (Thank God for small favors.) When it was in the WAC, again, two or three games a year on the tube were great. When TCU moved to C-USA, it got on TV six or seven times a year. Fantastic! (Even though you played any night of the week to get on air.) And with the MWC, TCU gets on air just as much, if not more, than it ever has.

Yet, fans *****. Because The Mtn. isn't available locally. Because it's on Versus. Because it's on CSTV. And God forbid that two or three games a year aren't on TV! It's ridiculous, if you ask me. I've been able to get more TCU games than ever, but some Froggies think it's a sin that they aren't on ABC every Saturday afternoon!

But, where the real hurt in exposure comes in the way ESPN basically ignores the MWC.

When the MWC came calling, TCU took the MWC contract at the time and compared it to the C-USA contract at the time. The MWC won, hands down. (And, as explained earlier, ESPN was telling TCU that C-USA's contract would be reduced.)

After TCU made the move, the MWC struck a financial coup with upstart CSTV. That made the MWC revenues jump significantly.

But, ESPN got pissed. All of a sudden, it threw together ESPNU in an attempt to keep CSTV from crowding in on its dominating domain over the sports world. And, though they deny it, ESPN goes to great lengths to avoid the MWC and doesn't do much of anything with CSTV.

ESPN did cut it's offer to C-USA. But, CSTV stepped in and took the remainder, filling the gap to keep C-USA at its overall previous level. It made ESPN and CSTV have to be "partners," but in press releases concerning C-USA, ESPN doesn't include the CSTV logo and goes to great lengths to not mention them unless absolutely necessary.

Several business journals have noted the tenseness that ESPN has with CSTV. My bet is that next go-round, ESPN tells C-USA its one way or the other -- no more partnering. And, if C-USA doesn't want to go all the way with ESPN, the MAC would sure love to jump in there and get some kind of revenue that it doesn't get now.

But back to the point. TCU knew it would not have games shown on ESPN when it went to the MWC. That was a given. But, when CSTV jumped out there and affronted ESPN and its omnipresence, TCU and the entire MWC got blacklisted by ESPN. You have to look hard to find MWC highlights on ESPN. During football, they're basically non-existent. And you won't find anything in basketball, unless they're playing a Top 25.

TCU wasn't prepared for that. Neither was BYU. And the Cougar media outlets are throwing a major stink about the MWC and it's lack of national exposure, the failures to get The Mtn. on locally or on DirecTV, and there are a lot of calls for BYU to go independent.

Anybody with any kind of sense about collegiate athletics knows going independent is like cutting your nose off to spite your face. It makes no sense, and BYU admin has basically said that.

Still, the rumblings of discontent from the conference's prime jewel has to make anybody in the MWC a little uneasy. If BYU ever left the MWC, and especially if Utah followed suit, the MWC becomes not much more than the WAC.

You asked if TCU would ever go back to C-USA? I don't think you can say never, but I wouldn't see it happening under the current circumstances.

TCU's relationship with Houston isn't as frigid as it was when TCU left, warming up some when UH played in the FW Bowl. If the MWC said it wanted to expand to 12 teams, I think TCU would ask that UH be a strong consideration.

At the time TCU left, it was looking for national prominence. At the time, SMU was just trying to stay afloat. SMU is trying hard, but it hasn't paid off yet. If it ever does, I think TCU would be much more accepting of being partnered with SMU again. (Remember, when TCU was accepted to C-USA, it expected SMU to be accepted the same day; however, C-USA took TCU and rejected SMU.)

Smackdown Wrote:Honestly, I couldn't tell you whether or not they put out feelers after the Katrina thing. I can see them doing it, because they are trying to stay abreast of what's going on and are trying to read the future. But, they are coming out much better financially in the MWC, so I don't believe for a second that they were looking for a door to open for them from C-USA.

There were some VERY bitter feelings between TCU and C-USA in the end. Led by UH and Maggard's snide comments, C-USA held a secret vote to change back to the high-dollar exit fees after it let all those schools go to the Big East and A-10. It was all directed at TCU, and I assure members of the administration were madder than hell! C-USA basically assured TCU of leaving at that point, regardless.

The one school that TCU had a good relationship with was Memphis. It was a pretty tight relationship. But, I'm not at liberty to explain anymore than that.

You said, "It very well could have just been an avenue to rebuild relationships in case you ever need them again." That's almost assuredly what any "feelers" were about.

Financially, TCU is much better off in the MWC. And, being a private school, that counts significantly. As for exposure, TCU definitely misses that -- at least it's fanbase does.

But let me explain.

Former A.D. Eric Hyman (now South Carolina) was really a proponent of that Eastern exposure. That was the ONLY thing he had reservations about in making the move. At the same time, TCU was under new leadership and a new plan -- to limit the enrollment of the school in an academic improvement effort -- and was rejecting thousands of applications at that point anyway. So, there was feeling on the board that the loss of Eastern exposure wasn't going to hurt much. (TCU draws a lot of students from the Midwest, east of the Plains.)

So, the improved finances of the MWC, and the fact that it was basically unanimous across the country in the leaders and experts that TCU consulted that it would be better off football wise in quality and prestige by being in the MWC, all made it a necessary move.

(Keep in mind too that MWC Commissioner Craig Thompson seemed to be active, organized. Britton Banowsky was running the C-USA offices in Chicago from his bedroom in Flower Mound, Texas, and appeared to be doing nothing but trying to save a conference of some kind so that he would still have a job as a commissioner. Banowsky didn't like it that Hyman tried to consolidate the remnants of C-USA with the Big East, because he wouldn't have had a job. And, TCU wasn't the only school in C-USA that was upset with the way Banowsky was hiding under the table when all hell was breaking loose.)

TCU is getting a lot of bitching from its hardcore fanbase about TV exposure. And, it just blows me away!

When TCU was in the SWC, it's games were rarely on TV. (Thank God for small favors.) When it was in the WAC, again, two or three games a year on the tube were great. When TCU moved to C-USA, it got on TV six or seven times a year. Fantastic! (Even though you played any night of the week to get on air.) And with the MWC, TCU gets on air just as much, if not more, than it ever has.

Yet, fans *****. Because The Mtn. isn't available locally. Because it's on Versus. Because it's on CSTV. And God forbid that two or three games a year aren't on TV! It's ridiculous, if you ask me. I've been able to get more TCU games than ever, but some Froggies think it's a sin that they aren't on ABC every Saturday afternoon!

But, where the real hurt in exposure comes in the way ESPN basically ignores the MWC.

When the MWC came calling, TCU took the MWC contract at the time and compared it to the C-USA contract at the time. The MWC won, hands down. (And, as explained earlier, ESPN was telling TCU that C-USA's contract would be reduced.)

After TCU made the move, the MWC struck a financial coup with upstart CSTV. That made the MWC revenues jump significantly.

But, ESPN got pissed. All of a sudden, it threw together ESPNU in an attempt to keep CSTV from crowding in on its dominating domain over the sports world. And, though they deny it, ESPN goes to great lengths to avoid the MWC and doesn't do much of anything with CSTV.

ESPN did cut it's offer to C-USA. But, CSTV stepped in and took the remainder, filling the gap to keep C-USA at its overall previous level. It made ESPN and CSTV have to be "partners," but in press releases concerning C-USA, ESPN doesn't include the CSTV logo and goes to great lengths to not mention them unless absolutely necessary.

Several business journals have noted the tenseness that ESPN has with CSTV. My bet is that next go-round, ESPN tells C-USA its one way or the other -- no more partnering. And, if C-USA doesn't want to go all the way with ESPN, the MAC would sure love to jump in there and get some kind of revenue that it doesn't get now.

But back to the point. TCU knew it would not have games shown on ESPN when it went to the MWC. That was a given. But, when CSTV jumped out there and affronted ESPN and its omnipresence, TCU and the entire MWC got blacklisted by ESPN. You have to look hard to find MWC highlights on ESPN. During football, they're basically non-existent. And you won't find anything in basketball, unless they're playing a Top 25.

TCU wasn't prepared for that. Neither was BYU. And the Cougar media outlets are throwing a major stink about the MWC and it's lack of national exposure, the failures to get The Mtn. on locally or on DirecTV, and there are a lot of calls for BYU to go independent.

Anybody with any kind of sense about collegiate athletics knows going independent is like cutting your nose off to spite your face. It makes no sense, and BYU admin has basically said that.

Still, the rumblings of discontent from the conference's prime jewel has to make anybody in the MWC a little uneasy. If BYU ever left the MWC, and especially if Utah followed suit, the MWC becomes not much more than the WAC.

You asked if TCU would ever go back to C-USA? I don't think you can say never, but I wouldn't see it happening under the current circumstances.

TCU's relationship with Houston isn't as frigid as it was when TCU left, warming up some when UH played in the FW Bowl. If the MWC said it wanted to expand to 12 teams, I think TCU would ask that UH be a strong consideration.

At the time TCU left, it was looking for national prominence. At the time, SMU was just trying to stay afloat. SMU is trying hard, but it hasn't paid off yet. If it ever does, I think TCU would be much more accepting of being partnered with SMU again. (Remember, when TCU was accepted to C-USA, it expected SMU to be accepted the same day; however, C-USA took TCU and rejected SMU.)

Very good post, it's been over a month since you posted it and CSTV is now changing to CBS College Sports Network. It sounds like the mtn will now be on Direct TV for 2008's Football season from everything I'm hearing.
I would like to add a few things:
Versus signed contracts with the Pac 10 and the Big 12 to go along with the MWC broadcasts in football. Also they did some games in HD (some Pac 10 & Big 12 games).
CSTV/CBS College Sports Network and Versus both have HD channels on Direct TV listings. IMO, I could see the same thing happening for the mtn, once it is up and rolling on Direct TV.
ESPN does not list the Versus games either, I thought they would with the Pac 10 and Big 12 playing games on Versus also now.
I have to say I often here from C-USA fans about how mush better their Bowls are compared to the MWC.
Bowl monies, C-USA vs MWC:
C-USA 2007;
Liberty Bowl- $1.5 million
GMAC Bowl- $750,000
Texas Bowl- $500,000
Hawaii Bowl- $398,000
New Orleans Bowl- $325,000
Papajohns.com- $300,000
Bowl Totals- $3,773,000
Divided by 12 schools- $314,416.67 per school

MWC 2007;
Las Vegas Bowl- $950,000
Poinsettia Bowl- $750,000
New Mexico Bowl- $750,000
Armed Forces Bowl- $600,000
Texas Bowl- $500,000
Bowl Totals- $3,550,000
Divided by 9 schools- $394,444.44 per school
Now even if you take off the Texas Bowl the total would be $3050,000 / 9 = $338,888.89 per school.

The BC$ Payment (buy off);
Both in 2006 and 2007 the MWC has finished 1st and C-USA finished 3rd in 2006 and I think they held on to 3rd place in 2007.
In 2006 the MWC received- $3,379,200 / 9 = $375,466.67 per school
In 2006 the C-USA received- $2,396,160 /12 = $199,680.00 per school

I would thing the numbers would be roughly the same for the BC$ payout, so if you add that to the Bowl money the numbers are roughly something like this;
C-USA- $3,773,000 + $2,396,160 = $6,169,160 /12 = $514,096.67 per school
MWC- $3,550,000 + $3,379,200 = $6,929,200 / 9 = $769,911.11 per school

I believe the basketball credits earned over the last 2 years would break down close to the same amount. But the pieces are bigger when the same sized pie is split 9 versus split 12.

Kit-Cat Wrote:

OUBOBCATJOHN Wrote:TCU to the MWC and Marshall to CUSA are two moves that might look good in the short term, but very stupid long term. I can't believe these college presidents can ignore those travel expenses. Once a major recession hits and the TV networks cut back on these crazy TV deals, the TCU's, LA Tech's, and Marshall's will have to reconsider their conferences.

Actually I think Marshall's move to CUSA was not bad at all.

Marshall has a 40k stadium that is a class above what most MAC schools can offer........most CUSA schools are 40k or 50k while MAC is 25k to 30k.

Playing conference games in Texas and Florida helps with recruiting too.

I could only wish, but I think this lineup would be pretty sweet.

TCU
Houston
Tulane
Southern Miss.
Memphis
Marshall
Ohio
MU
UAB
Central Florida

Top to bottom that would be as good as the Mountain West.......TCU, So.Miss, and Houston in football.....Memphis, UAB and Ohio in basketball.

I had hoped that when C-USA formed again in 2005. That MAC schools instead of WAC schools would be added. If the MAC schools would invest in their facilities. That way you have an eastern league with a North South Division. It would have looked something like this:
14 teams
North:
Ohio
Toledo
Miami Ohio
Bowling Green
NIU
Marshall
ECU

South:
Houston
Southern Miss
Tulane
Memphis
UCF
UAB
TCU

That being said I have enjoyed our WAC conference mates. UCF's old MAC roots just make me miss playing those teams sometimes.

I hope I am wrong.. but I think both CUSA and MWC are going to get hurt on the next go round of tv deals... CBS buying out CSTV is great for cstv and both conf short term.. but don't be suprised to see Cstv take a big chunk of SEC games..in partnership with CBS next time.. they will have less need for MWC or CUSA after that.. I wouldnt be surprised to see CUSA back with ESPN only... making more than they do now on espn.. but less than they do on package deal.. and MWC getting the CSTV leftovers.. after they fill time with SEC games.. also at less $$$$ then they get now..

goodknightfl Wrote:I hope I am wrong.. but I think both CUSA and MWC are going to get hurt on the next go round of tv deals... CBS buying out CSTV is great for cstv and both conf short term.. but don't be suprised to see Cstv take a big chunk of SEC games..in partnership with CBS next time.. they will have less need for MWC or CUSA after that.. I wouldnt be surprised to see CUSA back with ESPN only... making more than they do now on espn.. but less than they do on package deal.. and MWC getting the CSTV leftovers.. after they fill time with SEC games.. also at less $$$$ then they get now..

FWIW, from what I've heard the MWC renegotiated their contract after CBS took over with some prompting from CBS, the original contract was 7 years for $82 million the new one is 10 years for $120 million. IMO, CBS wanted the contract longer since they would be starting the mtn for the MWC and thus wanted a longer commitment from the MWC. Also since CBS has spent money in developing the mtn I don't see CBS having anything but a higher need for the MWC. Also if the mtn becomes a decent money maker for CBS they might decide the MWC needs a larger $$$ amount in order to keep them, because as we all know a conference network is not much good with the conference now is it.
As far as C-USA, IMO it will be 90% chance they will sign with CBS College Sports Network, 5% chance they will sign with some other Network, 4.99% chance they will sign with ESPN, and a 0.01% they will sign with both ESPN and CBS-CSN.