how these contracts change will be interesting to watch

(06-24-2010 10:38 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  ESPN3 is going to be huge.

In about 15-20 years when today's college students make up more of the market. I commend the folks at Disney pouring money into that hole because most corporate drones would kill a money loser or low profit venture like that to make the bottom line look good for Wall Street.

Sun Belt hasn't been below $1 million in the contract that just expired (2006-09) with a best of $2 million in 2007 when we passed the MAC.

Fresno is losing too many games. 1985-1991 seven years and six of them 2 or fewer losses. 2001-2009 is nine seasons with 7 seasons of four or more losses.

Does ESPN pay the WAC by appearances? If so Fresno and Nevada will get all the money. We lost a lot because Hill wants to play all the big names he can, mostly on the road. Boise being gone should help our record too. We were in the Big West in 85-91, WAC 92-present. The big west was us and a good SJSU and and and....That's why it was easy to win. LBSU, UOP, CS Fullerton don't even have teams anymore. My sig shows what Fresno has done. Joins the WAC and get a piece of the first 2 titles, then Sweeney retires. Hill comes in gets 1. Then boom Boise

(06-25-2010 01:38 AM)Fresno St. Alum Wrote:  

(06-24-2010 10:38 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  ESPN3 is going to be huge.

In about 15-20 years when today's college students make up more of the market. I commend the folks at Disney pouring money into that hole because most corporate drones would kill a money loser or low profit venture like that to make the bottom line look good for Wall Street.

Sun Belt hasn't been below $1 million in the contract that just expired (2006-09) with a best of $2 million in 2007 when we passed the MAC.

Fresno is losing too many games. 1985-1991 seven years and six of them 2 or fewer losses. 2001-2009 is nine seasons with 7 seasons of four or more losses.

Does ESPN pay the WAC by appearances? If so Fresno and Nevada will get all the money. We lost a lot because Hill wants to play all the big names he can, mostly on the road. Boise being gone should help our record too. We were in the Big West in 85-91, WAC 92-present. The big west was us and a good SJSU and and and....That's why it was easy to win. LBSU, UOP, CS Fullerton don't even have teams anymore. My sig shows what Fresno has done. Joins the WAC and get a piece of the first 2 titles, then Sweeney retires. Hill comes in gets 1. Then boom Boise

ESPN cuts a check and says we will carry not less than this many games. Same check regardless of appearances.

(06-24-2010 10:14 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  WAC BCS revenue
2006 $9,008,000
2007 $9,170,000
2008 $3,224,000
2009 $7.8 million

Now we know that no BCS team has ever spent less than $1 million on the trip and $2 million isn't unheard of. Without researching, I'd say only about 60% to 70% of the 2006, 2007, 2009 BCS revenue was available for distribution to the membership.

With Boise out of the mix, the probable best case for WAC revenue from the BCS barring someone running the table AND being the highest rated non-AQ the league is looking at between $1.8 million and $3 million in distributable BCS income (figures adjusted upward for new BCS/ESPN deal) and then only if there is buster out of the non-AQ's. With no buster factor downward at least $500,000.

The ugly truth is that WAC, MAC, Sun Belt revenue is all starting to look the same.

I still believe we see a major reform of the BCS in 2014 that won't send as much money down the line. At risk of sounding like a WKU fan, getting basketball in order is going to be hugely important for the non-AQ in the future because there is going to be less BCS revenue to share and the TV deals are going to be low dollar in the overall economy of college athletics.

Future Conference Growth and stability?

Cut schools who increase travel(Denver), don't play football(UALR), or can never financially support a top basketball program(ULM)

Then,

Add schools that decrease travel, currently or plan to play FBS football, have the resources to possibly one day support a top basketball program or already do.

Missouri State
Louisiana Tech
Texas State
Georgia State
Appalachian State

All have budgets over 13 mill.

(06-25-2010 12:08 PM)CAJUNNATION Wrote:  

(06-24-2010 10:14 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  WAC BCS revenue
2006 $9,008,000
2007 $9,170,000
2008 $3,224,000
2009 $7.8 million

Now we know that no BCS team has ever spent less than $1 million on the trip and $2 million isn't unheard of. Without researching, I'd say only about 60% to 70% of the 2006, 2007, 2009 BCS revenue was available for distribution to the membership.

With Boise out of the mix, the probable best case for WAC revenue from the BCS barring someone running the table AND being the highest rated non-AQ the league is looking at between $1.8 million and $3 million in distributable BCS income (figures adjusted upward for new BCS/ESPN deal) and then only if there is buster out of the non-AQ's. With no buster factor downward at least $500,000.

The ugly truth is that WAC, MAC, Sun Belt revenue is all starting to look the same.

I still believe we see a major reform of the BCS in 2014 that won't send as much money down the line. At risk of sounding like a WKU fan, getting basketball in order is going to be hugely important for the non-AQ in the future because there is going to be less BCS revenue to share and the TV deals are going to be low dollar in the overall economy of college athletics.

Future Conference Growth and stability?

Cut schools who increase travel(Denver), don't play football(UALR), or can never financially support a top basketball program(ULM)

Then,

Add schools that decrease travel, currently or plan to play FBS football, have the resources to possibly one day support a top basketball program or already do.

Missouri State
Louisiana Tech
Texas State
Georgia State
Appalachian State

All have budgets over 13 mill.

Please spare us with your shots at ULM. We do not have a problem with our basketball program, aside from some APR issues. Our basketball sucked, but not due to finances. We were the victims of a good assistant that aspired to be a HC but then became overwhelmed with being a HC. He is now a top assitant at an SEC school again. As much as many on here want to point to ULM's perceived budget and say it is bringing down the SBC I wish they would take their head out of the crapper and truly look at ULM athletics for its good. The last two out of the past three years we have been 6-6 in football, our baseball team not too long ago won the freakin' conference's regular season title and we appeared in the title game in 2009, our basketball program won our freakin' division a few years back and this year Luther Ambrose finished 3rd out of all competitors in the 100 m dash at Nationals. ULM is not the problem with the SBC, as some with an agenda may lead many to believe. It is not all about money. UNT proves that you can throw money at the problem and still win about 1-2 games on a season. The problem with the SBC is an inability to stop the spread of these terrible perceptions, and a need to bring up the lower third of the confrence from a competition standpoint. If an NFL team can just miss the playoffs while maintaining lowest payroll in the league should that team be attacked since they did not spend more money than other teams in the league that finished about the same or worse? What about a Major League Baseball team that wins their division while having one of the lowest payrolls in the league. Should they be forced to increase their payroll next season? Efficiency should not be punished. Do you know how much money we paid Weatherbie for those 6-6 seasons? It was not much, and we were able to win some good games including beating Alabama. If you ask me, I say we should work to make teams more efficient as oposed to saying we need to make sure that the Belt schools can throw more money into what may be money pits for some. With revenue in the SBC limited, and our ability to keep travel cost down, the SBC will make gains and strides by finding other revenue sources and limiting expenditures. It just doesn't make any fiscal or growth sense to out spend your revenues at this point. Measured growth is what will grow the SBC. That is a luxury that we have over all of the other non-BCS leagues aside from the MAC. We just have to imporve our on-the-field product.