1. They insist they are going to have a semi-final and finals for the conference football title. This can't be done under NCAA rules without giving up either a regular season game or a bowl game for the title game participants and changing the rules isn't likely.

2. The idea of having a conference where the selling point is "you'll never play half the teams" is a bizarre way to create a working relationship.

3. The new BCS eliminates a shot at the Orange, Sugar, Fiesta and Rose leaving only the top four champs to compete for the national championship and the fat pay check. This ought to have the non-AQ looking to realign in such a way that the dead wood is cut from their league and the strongest teams aligning to play each other. Decisions made based on football QUALITY not TV markets.

4. The TV deal is fantasy.
MWC had a TV value of $12 million for 10 teams. That's $1.2 million per team. Three of the four most attractive teams left (TCU, Utah, BYU leaving only Air Force).

CUSA had a TV value of $14 million for 12 teams. That's $1.17 million per team. They have lost UCF, Houston, and SMU located in BIG TV markets and they've lost Memphis the only clearly valuable basketball member.

The WAC had a TV value of $4 million for 9 teams. That's $444,000 per team. They lost Boise State (small market, great TV draw), Hawaii, Fresno and Nevada and their rights were cut to $1 million meaning the four combined were worth roughly $750,000 each.

I don't see how you lose Boise, San Diego State, Memphis, UCF, SMU, Houston, TCU, BYU, and Utah and get even $12 million for the 16 Alliance schools. If you do that's $750,000 per team. So they expand. Let's say they take SJSU, USU, FIU, and UNT. The four of them are in two leagues receiving a million a year. To not lose money TV has to pay an extra $3 million for a break-even but they are coming from a group of 17 schools worth only $2 million.

Each comes from a league worth roughly $100,000 per team. If FIU and UNT are worth $1.5 million to TV then that means the remaining Sun Belt teams are worth a combined negative half million.

What it all comes down to is trying to make a ugly product sound nice over the phone. The teams that were worth the most are gone or they would never have been invited to AQ conferences. If you notice all the info about the new alliance TV deal has come straight from alliance reps not the networks. Benson could get on twitter and say Tv networks are interested.

I admire the determination of the remaining members of Conference USA and the MWC to try and stay ahead of the Wac, Mac, and Sun Belt but what's gone is gone. Every single remaining nonAQ team has at least one negative thing to them as to why they aren't in a AQ conference. Like Troy/USM usually have good sports heck in 2010 Troy won the conference in basketball and football. But both of our schools don't have huge media markets.

The fact is college football is not at a point to where there are no Houston's, BYU's, TCU's and SMU's that were left out of AQ conferences when they should have been in the first place. After expansion settles this time it's probably done for good or a long time because going past 14 is just a logistical nightmare fantasy fabricated by left out fans.

When the official news is out no matter who is added realistically with the 16 teams the alliance has now it would be around 880,000 per school. Adding UNT and FIU isn't going to send them to this 3-4 mil per school they are dreaming of. And I see a hard time getting a network to actually commit to anything big because at any time the alliance could split if one side feels more valuable than the other. Heck, this thing is based on TV money anyway so teams leaving if they can make more makes sense.

$880,000 per school might be optimistic. My contact in Memphis said they had been bracing for it to be as low as $300,000 per school before they left.

I'm interested to see how the other sports work. The only cost-effective option would be to handle it like the football side and only rarely play cross-divisionally. I don't know what the rules are regarding conference divisional play, but the non-FB sports are where the travel costs are the highest.

I almost think they believed the alliance might stave off defections, but when it didn't, they were too far down the road to turn back. If the TV money isn't there, I don't see the wisdom in merging. Both conferences could add geographically sensible teams and be done with it.

(03-04-2012 09:08 AM)johnnylightnin Wrote:  I'm interested to see how the other sports work. The only cost-effective option would be to handle it like the football side and only rarely play cross-divisionally. I don't know what the rules are regarding conference divisional play, but the non-FB sports are where the travel costs are the highest.

I almost think they believed the alliance might stave off defections, but when it didn't, they were too far down the road to turn back. If the TV money isn't there, I don't see the wisdom in merging. Both conferences could add geographically sensible teams and be done with it.

That seems a pretty reasonable assumption...what gets me is what makes these folks think in basketball or any other sport that there are going to be a better or equal opportunity for post season bids? Could this 18, 20, or 24 team monster be just a one bid conference in men's basketball? I scratched my head when I heard about this way before the defections, but now it is even more of a head scratcher...

(03-04-2012 09:08 AM)johnnylightnin Wrote:  I'm interested to see how the other sports work. The only cost-effective option would be to handle it like the football side and only rarely play cross-divisionally. I don't know what the rules are regarding conference divisional play, but the non-FB sports are where the travel costs are the highest.

I almost think they believed the alliance might stave off defections, but when it didn't, they were too far down the road to turn back. If the TV money isn't there, I don't see the wisdom in merging. Both conferences could add geographically sensible teams and be done with it.

Puzzles me. I see I'm not the only "hater" out there. Saw this linked on a sports business blog.
http://dev.chuckoliver.net/2012/02/c-usa...d-to-fail/

Sounds an awful lot like barnstorming...it makes more sense to become more "regionallized"...

Good read.

This is all spin to try to make crap into honey. That is why they keep talking "markets, markets, markets". I give those two conference commissioners a lot of credit for managing to convince a lot of people that 1 + 1 = 5.

The only thing that makes actual long-term sense are regional conferences where we can put butts in the seats and develop/maintain rivalries.

Those regional conferences can make deals with one another for scheduling, to negotiate tv rights, and put together bowl matchups. But merging into a single monster doesn't make sense.

(03-04-2012 09:59 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(03-04-2012 09:08 AM)johnnylightnin Wrote:  I'm interested to see how the other sports work. The only cost-effective option would be to handle it like the football side and only rarely play cross-divisionally. I don't know what the rules are regarding conference divisional play, but the non-FB sports are where the travel costs are the highest.

I almost think they believed the alliance might stave off defections, but when it didn't, they were too far down the road to turn back. If the TV money isn't there, I don't see the wisdom in merging. Both conferences could add geographically sensible teams and be done with it.

Puzzles me. I see I'm not the only "hater" out there. Saw this linked on a sports business blog.
http://dev.chuckoliver.net/2012/02/c-usa...d-to-fail/

Why did he leave out ASU?

(03-04-2012 10:50 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  This is all spin to try to make crap into honey. That is why they keep talking "markets, markets, markets". I give those two conference commissioners a lot of credit for managing to convince a lot of people that 1 + 1 = 5.

The only thing that makes actual long-term sense are regional conferences where we can put butts in the seats and develop/maintain rivalries.

Those regional conferences can make deals with one another for scheduling, to negotiate tv rights, and put together bowl matchups. But merging into a single monster doesn't make sense.

You're preachin' to the choir...

(03-04-2012 11:08 AM)GoBigRed26 Wrote:  

(03-04-2012 09:59 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(03-04-2012 09:08 AM)johnnylightnin Wrote:  I'm interested to see how the other sports work. The only cost-effective option would be to handle it like the football side and only rarely play cross-divisionally. I don't know what the rules are regarding conference divisional play, but the non-FB sports are where the travel costs are the highest.

I almost think they believed the alliance might stave off defections, but when it didn't, they were too far down the road to turn back. If the TV money isn't there, I don't see the wisdom in merging. Both conferences could add geographically sensible teams and be done with it.

Puzzles me. I see I'm not the only "hater" out there. Saw this linked on a sports business blog.
http://dev.chuckoliver.net/2012/02/c-usa...d-to-fail/

Why did he leave out ASU?

Big XII with Louisville :)

(03-04-2012 11:14 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(03-04-2012 11:08 AM)GoBigRed26 Wrote:  

(03-04-2012 09:59 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(03-04-2012 09:08 AM)johnnylightnin Wrote:  I'm interested to see how the other sports work. The only cost-effective option would be to handle it like the football side and only rarely play cross-divisionally. I don't know what the rules are regarding conference divisional play, but the non-FB sports are where the travel costs are the highest.

I almost think they believed the alliance might stave off defections, but when it didn't, they were too far down the road to turn back. If the TV money isn't there, I don't see the wisdom in merging. Both conferences could add geographically sensible teams and be done with it.

Puzzles me. I see I'm not the only "hater" out there. Saw this linked on a sports business blog.
http://dev.chuckoliver.net/2012/02/c-usa...d-to-fail/

Why did he leave out ASU?

Big XII with Louisville :)

Oh, yes of course.

The most compact regional conference for the majority of our schools I can imagine would be this:
West: ASU, La Tech, Tulane, ULM, UL, USM
East: MT, WKU, Troy, UAB, USA, GSU

(03-04-2012 09:08 AM)johnnylightnin Wrote:  I'm interested to see how the other sports work. The only cost-effective option would be to handle it like the football side and only rarely play cross-divisionally. I don't know what the rules are regarding conference divisional play, but the non-FB sports are where the travel costs are the highest.

I almost think they believed the alliance might stave off defections, but when it didn't, they were too far down the road to turn back. If the TV money isn't there, I don't see the wisdom in merging. Both conferences could add geographically sensible teams and be done with it.

Conference USA fans wanted to hang me when I said this lol. See I remember when the news was first out it sounded like a good idea at the time because only UCF and Boise had got invites if I'm correct and the Big East was losing teams left and right had just lost TCU, Cuse, Pitt, WV was trying to tear the whole league down, and everyone was looking at the door.

But then the unexpected happened SDSU, Houston, and SMU joined, Navy committed, and the Big East did not back down to WV and made them pay for leaving. Then the alliance thought it would be able to get Temple and have solid basketball in Memphis, Temple, UNLV, and New Mexico. But once again the Big East came out on top and took the very soul of conference USA if they want to admit it or not, Memphis. With them gone they likely lost their best bowl, a team who has been to like 6 bowls recently, and the basketball team. And once Memphis was gone Temple is about to join also.

At this point the commissioners just don't want to admit that the only reason they are continuing with this is to keep their fans away from reality. Even Tech fans have to ask themselves if they want to be in a 30+ team conference. To even make 2.5 mil a year they would have to pay like 75mil per year and like 300mil per four years.

(03-04-2012 11:21 AM)GoBigRed26 Wrote:  

(03-04-2012 11:14 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(03-04-2012 11:08 AM)GoBigRed26 Wrote:  

(03-04-2012 09:59 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(03-04-2012 09:08 AM)johnnylightnin Wrote:  I'm interested to see how the other sports work. The only cost-effective option would be to handle it like the football side and only rarely play cross-divisionally. I don't know what the rules are regarding conference divisional play, but the non-FB sports are where the travel costs are the highest.

I almost think they believed the alliance might stave off defections, but when it didn't, they were too far down the road to turn back. If the TV money isn't there, I don't see the wisdom in merging. Both conferences could add geographically sensible teams and be done with it.

Puzzles me. I see I'm not the only "hater" out there. Saw this linked on a sports business blog.
http://dev.chuckoliver.net/2012/02/c-usa...d-to-fail/

Why did he leave out ASU?

Big XII with Louisville :)

Oh, yes of course.

The most compact regional conference for the majority of our schools I can imagine would be this:
West: ASU, La Tech, Tulane, ULM, UL, USM
East: MT, WKU, Troy, UAB, USA, GSU

Why in the world would you include GSU in that response??? The longer this thing sits and nothing happens, the more chance it doesn't ever happen like it was originally presented. The money will not be there, all the info you hear is from fans that "think" they know what they are talking about, and that they have any control over what happens. If things were so great for the Mega Merger Conference, don't you think there would be some teams that have been invited, and a TV deal would be announced???

(03-04-2012 11:42 AM)Usajags Wrote:  

(03-04-2012 11:21 AM)GoBigRed26 Wrote:  

(03-04-2012 11:14 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(03-04-2012 11:08 AM)GoBigRed26 Wrote:  

(03-04-2012 09:59 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Puzzles me. I see I'm not the only "hater" out there. Saw this linked on a sports business blog.
http://dev.chuckoliver.net/2012/02/c-usa...d-to-fail/

Why did he leave out ASU?

Big XII with Louisville :)

Oh, yes of course.

The most compact regional conference for the majority of our schools I can imagine would be this:
West: ASU, La Tech, Tulane, ULM, UL, USM
East: MT, WKU, Troy, UAB, USA, GSU

Why in the world would you include GSU in that response??? The longer this thing sits and nothing happens, the more chance it doesn't ever happen like it was originally presented. The money will not be there, all the info you hear is from fans that "think" they know what they are talking about, and that they have any control over what happens. If things were so great for the Mega Merger Conference, don't you think there would be some teams that have been invited, and a TV deal would be announced???

I just said it was the most compact. I'm not advocating inviting them up, or trying to get TV money, I just said it'd be the most compact. Personally, I don't want to invite them to the SunBelt if we add teams.

I really see UNT jumping ship then the alliance failing after one season if it doesn't get the money it hopes to get. The ONLY and I mean the ONLY way they will cover travel cost is if they make 2+mil a year. And were talking about two conferences who made under 1.3 mil WITH all of their premier teams that left.

What I think they are doing is thinking that both conferences could estimate to 1 mil each so they are hoping for 2mil and hope adding FIU and UNT will make it 2.5mil. But what they are not noticing is that they are also getting 18 teams who will each have an equal share of the money and no company is going to just empty it's pockets for the heck of it when they could use that money to invest in other conferences.

I could really see conferences picking up the Sun Belt's Tv deal in the near future. They will get a decent product for 1 mil or less.

Unfortunately this is all about trying to preen for tv execs and ad people. You know....the people who think it is a good idea to have 30 different shows about ghosts....who think that competitive fashion design or cupcake baking makes for fascinating entertainment.

University presidents ought to be smarter than this. Who needs to be in our stadiums on game day is what should be the prime mover. Money will follow that ultimately.

(03-04-2012 09:59 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(03-04-2012 09:08 AM)johnnylightnin Wrote:  I'm interested to see how the other sports work. The only cost-effective option would be to handle it like the football side and only rarely play cross-divisionally. I don't know what the rules are regarding conference divisional play, but the non-FB sports are where the travel costs are the highest.

I almost think they believed the alliance might stave off defections, but when it didn't, they were too far down the road to turn back. If the TV money isn't there, I don't see the wisdom in merging. Both conferences could add geographically sensible teams and be done with it.

Puzzles me. I see I'm not the only "hater" out there. Saw this linked on a sports business blog.
http://dev.chuckoliver.net/2012/02/c-usa...d-to-fail/

Sounds an awful lot like me just wanting to see ECU go independent again. We could come up with a more financially viable model for ourselves then what that would be. Play a buy game or 2, a game in Charlotte a year, and see if one of the bowls in our general area (Charlotte, DC) would be interested in offering us some sort of secondary tie in. Our C-USA deal prevents us from selling our rights to regional networks like MASN and makes it impossible for us to get the games on local TV statewide. By ourselves we could put together something regionally that would work. We made independent work for over 20 years, and I'd rather try again than join some FCS/Sun-Belt hybrid.

(03-04-2012 05:46 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(03-04-2012 09:59 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(03-04-2012 09:08 AM)johnnylightnin Wrote:  I'm interested to see how the other sports work. The only cost-effective option would be to handle it like the football side and only rarely play cross-divisionally. I don't know what the rules are regarding conference divisional play, but the non-FB sports are where the travel costs are the highest.

I almost think they believed the alliance might stave off defections, but when it didn't, they were too far down the road to turn back. If the TV money isn't there, I don't see the wisdom in merging. Both conferences could add geographically sensible teams and be done with it.

Puzzles me. I see I'm not the only "hater" out there. Saw this linked on a sports business blog.
http://dev.chuckoliver.net/2012/02/c-usa...d-to-fail/

Sounds an awful lot like me just wanting to see ECU go independent again. We could come up with a more financially viable model for ourselves then what that would be. Play a buy game or 2, a game in Charlotte a year, and see if one of the bowls in our general area (Charlotte, DC) would be interested in offering us some sort of secondary tie in. Our C-USA deal prevents us from selling our rights to regional networks like MASN and makes it impossible for us to get the games on local TV statewide. By ourselves we could put together something regionally that would work. We made independent work for over 20 years, and I'd rather try again than join some FCS/Sun-Belt hybrid.

Football independence may work for ECU but not all sports. 20 years ago a lot of teams could have survived as indy because it was the cool thing to do and networks weren't forking over 1 billion $ deals the Pac-12 and probably soon to the SEC.

It's inevitable at this point as conferences grow so do the 9 game conference schedules. With BYU, Notre Dame, and Army indy ECU probably would not make it. Very long.

And unless you get special benefits from being associated with a church or the military the following of teams has turned into top 25 teams and conference teams. Not just anyone who is on TV.

(03-04-2012 05:59 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(03-04-2012 05:46 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(03-04-2012 09:59 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(03-04-2012 09:08 AM)johnnylightnin Wrote:  I'm interested to see how the other sports work. The only cost-effective option would be to handle it like the football side and only rarely play cross-divisionally. I don't know what the rules are regarding conference divisional play, but the non-FB sports are where the travel costs are the highest.

I almost think they believed the alliance might stave off defections, but when it didn't, they were too far down the road to turn back. If the TV money isn't there, I don't see the wisdom in merging. Both conferences could add geographically sensible teams and be done with it.

Puzzles me. I see I'm not the only "hater" out there. Saw this linked on a sports business blog.
http://dev.chuckoliver.net/2012/02/c-usa...d-to-fail/

Sounds an awful lot like me just wanting to see ECU go independent again. We could come up with a more financially viable model for ourselves then what that would be. Play a buy game or 2, a game in Charlotte a year, and see if one of the bowls in our general area (Charlotte, DC) would be interested in offering us some sort of secondary tie in. Our C-USA deal prevents us from selling our rights to regional networks like MASN and makes it impossible for us to get the games on local TV statewide. By ourselves we could put together something regionally that would work. We made independent work for over 20 years, and I'd rather try again than join some FCS/Sun-Belt hybrid.

Football independence may work for ECU but not all sports. 20 years ago a lot of teams could have survived as indy because it was the cool thing to do and networks weren't forking over 1 billion $ deals the Pac-12 and probably soon to the SEC.

It's inevitable at this point as conferences grow so do the 9 game conference schedules. With BYU, Notre Dame, and Army indy ECU probably would not make it. Very long.

And unless you get special benefits from being associated with a church or the military the following of teams has turned into top 25 teams and conference teams. Not just anyone who is on TV.

Obviously it wouldn't be for all sports. Probably try to get back into the CAA for the rest of our sports, save big time money there on travel costs, and then get creative to make money with the football schedule. We probably couldn't sign a deal with ESPN like we had as an independent in the late 90's, but we could sign something with MASN to broadcast regionally, and work out some local deals to get them on TV in the state. I don't love the idea of it, but we could probably do better financially on our own than in the league proposed in that opinion piece.