http://www.usufans.com/Forums/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=19132

An article from today's Albuquerque Journal is discussed in the above thread on the Utah State board. The quote about negotiations with CBS being the "linchpin" comes from New Mexico's university president.

Here are a couple of article excerpts:

*********************

The two leagues, in the wake of predations from their memberships by other conferences, have been working to unite in forming a bigger, stronger, more stable entity that would begin play in the fall 2013.

But the two conferences’ initial plans to dissolve and form a new league has hit some financial potholes, as reported in the past few days by CBSsports.com and by the San Jose Mercury. A merger — folding one league into the other, rather than dissolving both — also has drawbacks.

A third alternative is a less formal alliance. Both conferences would keep their identities but meet in postseason play and work together in negotiating TV contracts.

All three, Schmidly said Tuesday in an interview with the Journal, are still in play.

But he said that until more is known about the value of the new conference/alliance in the TV market, and until it’s known whether increased TV revenue can offset financial losses elsewhere, the right path can’t be determined.

“We have to know that whole (TV) package,” Schmidly said, “before we can make a final call.”

*********************

Negotiations with CBS, Schmidly said, are the linchpin. Both leagues have TV contracts in place with that network.

“They’re the first domino that has to be resolved,” he said. “There’s still some separation between where we believe we ought to be and where CBS wants to be, so we’re continuing those negotiations.”

Once a deal with CBS is reached, Schmidly said, other networks can be approached.

**********************

This pretty much confirms what some of us have speculated previously. The dissolution option primarily exists for one purpose: to put pressure on CBS to give CUSA and the MWC a better deal. Obviously CBS isn't so worried that it's rushing to pay what the conferences are asking, but the fact that there are negotiations actively underway suggests the strategy is having some success.

(03-31-2012 03:32 AM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  This pretty much confirms what some of us have speculated previously. The dissolution option primarily exists for one purpose: to put pressure on CBS to give CUSA and the MWC a better deal. Obviously CBS isn't so worried that it's rushing to pay what the conferences are asking, but the fact that there are negotiations actively underway suggests the strategy is having some success.

This keeps getting interestinger and interestinger...

I wish the conferences well. It may be best for all "non-AQ" conferences to disband and form one big conference or simply form a new classification. I think it makes sense whether the "AQ's" really are considering a new classification or not. (See http://csnbbs.com/showthread.php?tid=563901) The devil is in the details but considering the options, what gives "non-AQ" schools/conferences the most leverage?

If the "AQ's" want to fight this I would take it as an indication that it is too the "non-AQ's" advantage. If these schools/conferences would stick together it would also be easier to work out the tournament credit issues too. The exit fees are another issue altogether. I don't see that ending well but again, long term, I think this gives these schools/conferences hand.

CBS still has the power at this point. The only way alliance teams can force new TV deal is dissolve. That leads to a whole new set of problems. There is no real advantage for CBS to double or triple contract, Still have the same teams as now, For more $$.

Will be an interesting ride. Good luck.

This thing seems to be in trouble before it's even off the ground. Gknight is right it may not be in cbs's best interest to pay more money for the same teams minus a few. In any way they do this I don't believe it will be as strong as some may think.

(03-31-2012 07:42 AM)joe4psu Wrote:  

(03-31-2012 03:32 AM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  This pretty much confirms what some of us have speculated previously. The dissolution option primarily exists for one purpose: to put pressure on CBS to give CUSA and the MWC a better deal. Obviously CBS isn't so worried that it's rushing to pay what the conferences are asking, but the fact that there are negotiations actively underway suggests the strategy is having some success.

This keeps getting interestinger and interestinger...

I wish the conferences well. It may be best for all "non-AQ" conferences to disband and form one big conference or simply form a new classification. I think it makes sense whether the "AQ's" really are considering a new classification or not. (See http://csnbbs.com/showthread.php?tid=563901) The devil is in the details but considering the options, what gives "non-AQ" schools/conferences the most leverage?

If the "AQ's" want to fight this I would take it as an indication that it is too the "non-AQ's" advantage. If these schools/conferences would stick together it would also be easier to work out the tournament credit issues too. The exit fees are another issue altogether. I don't see that ending well but again, long term, I think this gives these schools/conferences hand.

Hell no to that idea. There is no reason we should ever willingly form a lower classification, and if the AQ schools try to do it we have to use whatever measures necessary to ensure it doesn't happen. If some of the non-AQ's want to be at a different level I'm sure there are FCS leagues that will take them. That's the death of ECU football if it happens. We'd go independent again before we'd willingly drop a level.

(03-31-2012 10:26 AM)jaredf29 Wrote:  This thing seems to be in trouble before it's even off the ground. Gknight is right it may not be in cbs's best interest to pay more money for the same teams minus a few. In any way they do this I don't believe it will be as strong as some may think.

(03-31-2012 11:15 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(03-31-2012 07:42 AM)joe4psu Wrote:  

(03-31-2012 03:32 AM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  This pretty much confirms what some of us have speculated previously. The dissolution option primarily exists for one purpose: to put pressure on CBS to give CUSA and the MWC a better deal. Obviously CBS isn't so worried that it's rushing to pay what the conferences are asking, but the fact that there are negotiations actively underway suggests the strategy is having some success.

This keeps getting interestinger and interestinger...

I wish the conferences well. It may be best for all "non-AQ" conferences to disband and form one big conference or simply form a new classification. I think it makes sense whether the "AQ's" really are considering a new classification or not. (See http://csnbbs.com/showthread.php?tid=563901) The devil is in the details but considering the options, what gives "non-AQ" schools/conferences the most leverage?

If the "AQ's" want to fight this I would take it as an indication that it is too the "non-AQ's" advantage. If these schools/conferences would stick together it would also be easier to work out the tournament credit issues too. The exit fees are another issue altogether. I don't see that ending well but again, long term, I think this gives these schools/conferences hand.

Hell no to that idea. There is no reason we should ever willingly form a lower classification, and if the AQ schools try to do it we have to use whatever measures necessary to ensure it doesn't happen. If some of the non-AQ's want to be at a different level I'm sure there are FCS leagues that will take them. That's the death of ECU football if it happens. We'd go independent again before we'd willingly drop a level.

You realize that fbs is about to reach 124 schools and that number is only going to grow right? You are aware of the issue created by the 4 year scholarships this past year right? Not to mention the "full cost of attendance" issue. Something needs to be done. There is too big a divide to consider all these schools on the same level.

120+ schools creates too big of a post season mess if nothing else. Whether ECU remains in the upper echelon or not isn't the only issue to be considered. And considering history, even if there is a new classification it will only be a (short) matter of time before schools begin jumping to the higher level.

What do you suggest?

(03-31-2012 11:41 AM)joe4psu Wrote:  You realize that fbs is about to reach 124 schools and that number is only going to grow right? You are aware of the issue created by the 4 year scholarships this past year right? Not to mention the "full cost of attendance" issue. Something needs to be done. There is too big a divide to consider all these schools on the same level.

120+ schools creates too big of a post season mess if nothing else. Whether ECU remains in the upper echelon or not isn't the only issue to be considered. And considering history, even if there is a new classification it will only be a (short) matter of time before schools begin jumping to the higher level.

What do you suggest?

I don't disagree there are a good number of schools that don't belong at this level, but ECU absolutely does. If you actually increased and enforced the attendance rules on the books you could get rid of plenty of the schools that don't belong at this level. I think anyone that can't average 25k doesn't belong at the highest level of college football, and I think you could even make that 30 if you really wanted to. That's my suggestion. Whether ECU remains at the upper echelon is the only issue that I need to consider. There is no basis to say a school that averages 50k fans a game isn't supporting it's programs at the highest level.

Some of this still sounds like silly talk.

If a merged alliance would only bring in TV money that is roughly the per-school equivalent of the current CUSA TV deal, then it would be dumb to throw away the NCAA hoops money and exit fee money that will be received by CUSA and MWC if they remain separate entities.

Now if a merged league brings each alliance school 3x or 4x the current CUSA per-school payout, then maybe they would come out ahead by merging even if they flush all of the CUSA and MWC NCAA basketball money and exit fees down the toilet.

But even then, it only makes sense if the merged league is worth a lot more per school than the schools could earn in separate conferences.

Unless there is some weird twist to TV rights that we don't know about, it still looks like the best solution is separate leagues for everything but football, and then for football you either have all 16 (or more) teams competing in one league, or you convince the NCAA to allow a MWC vs. CUSA playoff game on "championship Saturday".

(03-31-2012 12:41 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Some of this still sounds like silly talk.

If a merged alliance would only bring in TV money that is roughly the per-school equivalent of the current CUSA TV deal, then it would be dumb to throw away the NCAA hoops money and exit fee money that will be received by CUSA and MWC if they remain separate entities.

Now if a merged league brings each alliance school 3x or 4x the current CUSA per-school payout, then maybe they would come out ahead by merging even if they flush all of the CUSA and MWC NCAA basketball money and exit fees down the toilet.

But even then, it only makes sense if the merged league is worth a lot more per school than the schools could earn in separate conferences.

Unless there is some weird twist to TV rights that we don't know about, it still looks like the best solution is separate leagues for everything but football, and then for football you either have all 16 (or more) teams competing in one league, or you convince the NCAA to allow a MWC vs. CUSA playoff game on "championship Saturday".

I have always thought it was fuzzy math when MountUs kept insisting they'd get more per school by bringing in Sunbelt teams to bring their numbers to 24.

16 is the absolute threshold. And that's just because they'd be playing off the name value of the two merged leagues. Beyond 16, the inherent lack of value in their potential additions become exposed.

(03-31-2012 11:49 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(03-31-2012 11:41 AM)joe4psu Wrote:  You realize that fbs is about to reach 124 schools and that number is only going to grow right? You are aware of the issue created by the 4 year scholarships this past year right? Not to mention the "full cost of attendance" issue. Something needs to be done. There is too big a divide to consider all these schools on the same level.

120+ schools creates too big of a post season mess if nothing else. Whether ECU remains in the upper echelon or not isn't the only issue to be considered. And considering history, even if there is a new classification it will only be a (short) matter of time before schools begin jumping to the higher level.

What do you suggest?

I don't disagree there are a good number of schools that don't belong at this level, but ECU absolutely does. If you actually increased and enforced the attendance rules on the books you could get rid of plenty of the schools that don't belong at this level. I think anyone that can't average 25k doesn't belong at the highest level of college football, and I think you could even make that 30 if you really wanted to. That's my suggestion. Whether ECU remains at the upper echelon is the only issue that I need to consider. There is no basis to say a school that averages 50k fans a game isn't supporting it's programs at the highest level.

I agree with you about attendance numbers. This would probably put a pretty good dent in the MAC though. And other conferences I'm sure. ECU's problem, from what I've heard, is being the fifth wheel on the NC wagon. Nothing a couple of undefeated seasons can't fix.

(03-31-2012 01:51 PM)joe4psu Wrote:  ECU's problem, from what I've heard, is being the fifth wheel on the NC wagon. Nothing a couple of undefeated seasons can't fix.

That's the TCU path to relevance in a crowded college market. But to do it ECU would have to start scheduling more like Boise State. One and only one challenging non-conference game, three easy games, and an undefeated run through their conference. Repeat for a few years and, voila, you are the next Boise State.

(03-31-2012 01:06 PM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  

(03-31-2012 12:41 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Some of this still sounds like silly talk.

If a merged alliance would only bring in TV money that is roughly the per-school equivalent of the current CUSA TV deal, then it would be dumb to throw away the NCAA hoops money and exit fee money that will be received by CUSA and MWC if they remain separate entities.

Now if a merged league brings each alliance school 3x or 4x the current CUSA per-school payout, then maybe they would come out ahead by merging even if they flush all of the CUSA and MWC NCAA basketball money and exit fees down the toilet.

But even then, it only makes sense if the merged league is worth a lot more per school than the schools could earn in separate conferences.

Unless there is some weird twist to TV rights that we don't know about, it still looks like the best solution is separate leagues for everything but football, and then for football you either have all 16 (or more) teams competing in one league, or you convince the NCAA to allow a MWC vs. CUSA playoff game on "championship Saturday".

I have always thought it was fuzzy math when MountUs kept insisting they'd get more per school by bringing in Sunbelt teams to bring their numbers to 24.

16 is the absolute threshold. And that's just because they'd be playing off the name value of the two merged leagues. Beyond 16, the inherent lack of value in their potential additions become exposed.

its not about the teams, its about the markets they reside in

its not about FIU, but Miami
its not about UNT, but Dallas
ect.

(03-31-2012 03:33 PM)mufanatehc Wrote:  

(03-31-2012 01:06 PM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  

(03-31-2012 12:41 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Some of this still sounds like silly talk.

If a merged alliance would only bring in TV money that is roughly the per-school equivalent of the current CUSA TV deal, then it would be dumb to throw away the NCAA hoops money and exit fee money that will be received by CUSA and MWC if they remain separate entities.

Now if a merged league brings each alliance school 3x or 4x the current CUSA per-school payout, then maybe they would come out ahead by merging even if they flush all of the CUSA and MWC NCAA basketball money and exit fees down the toilet.

But even then, it only makes sense if the merged league is worth a lot more per school than the schools could earn in separate conferences.

Unless there is some weird twist to TV rights that we don't know about, it still looks like the best solution is separate leagues for everything but football, and then for football you either have all 16 (or more) teams competing in one league, or you convince the NCAA to allow a MWC vs. CUSA playoff game on "championship Saturday".

I have always thought it was fuzzy math when MountUs kept insisting they'd get more per school by bringing in Sunbelt teams to bring their numbers to 24.

16 is the absolute threshold. And that's just because they'd be playing off the name value of the two merged leagues. Beyond 16, the inherent lack of value in their potential additions become exposed.

its not about the teams, its about the markets they reside in

its not about FIU, but Miami
its not about UNT, but Dallas
ect.

The markets have no value to the league unless the school you're adding in that market has strong support in that market. One strength of the top conferences, by and large, is that their top programs "own their own markets".

If you add a school that is the 5th, 6th, 7th, or 8th most-popular college team in its own market, there's not a whole lot of TV value there, and even less if it's a market dominated by pro sports.

(03-31-2012 03:49 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(03-31-2012 03:33 PM)mufanatehc Wrote:  

(03-31-2012 01:06 PM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  

(03-31-2012 12:41 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Some of this still sounds like silly talk.

If a merged alliance would only bring in TV money that is roughly the per-school equivalent of the current CUSA TV deal, then it would be dumb to throw away the NCAA hoops money and exit fee money that will be received by CUSA and MWC if they remain separate entities.

Now if a merged league brings each alliance school 3x or 4x the current CUSA per-school payout, then maybe they would come out ahead by merging even if they flush all of the CUSA and MWC NCAA basketball money and exit fees down the toilet.

But even then, it only makes sense if the merged league is worth a lot more per school than the schools could earn in separate conferences.

Unless there is some weird twist to TV rights that we don't know about, it still looks like the best solution is separate leagues for everything but football, and then for football you either have all 16 (or more) teams competing in one league, or you convince the NCAA to allow a MWC vs. CUSA playoff game on "championship Saturday".

I have always thought it was fuzzy math when MountUs kept insisting they'd get more per school by bringing in Sunbelt teams to bring their numbers to 24.

16 is the absolute threshold. And that's just because they'd be playing off the name value of the two merged leagues. Beyond 16, the inherent lack of value in their potential additions become exposed.

its not about the teams, its about the markets they reside in

its not about FIU, but Miami
its not about UNT, but Dallas
ect.

The markets have no value to the league unless the school you're adding in that market has strong support in that market. One strength of the top conferences, by and large, is that their top programs "own their own markets".

If you add a school that is the 5th, 6th, 7th, or 8th most-popular college team in its own market, there's not a whole lot of TV value there, and even less if it's a market dominated by pro sports.

Not only do the top AQ schools own their markets but their markets are often their entire state, or most of it.

The Alliance is following the nBE lead it seems. Not trying to start a pi$$ing match at all but some schools taken by the nBE in this past round do not own their markets and not by a long shot. Same goes for many schools being talked about for the new Alliance. Makes me think that there must at least be some tv value to just exist in a large market.

(03-31-2012 03:57 PM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  The Alliance is following the nBE lead it seems. Not trying to start a pi$$ing match at all but some schools taken by the nBE in this past round do not own their markets and not by a long shot. Same goes for many schools being talked about for the new Alliance. Makes me think that there must at least be some tv value to just exist in a large market.

You don't have to 'own' the market to be a big draw.

FORBES MAGAZINE ran a great story on a particular nBe addition and their place in their market. The nBe will be fine. Names like Memphis and Houston have cred in their markets. And they've written significant chapters in collegiate sports history, might I add. So far, the Alliance teams I've heard mentioned are much further down the list of options for sports fans in their markets (historically). UNT for example...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/sportsmoney/...f-houston/

(03-31-2012 04:04 PM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  

(03-31-2012 03:57 PM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  The Alliance is following the nBE lead it seems. Not trying to start a pi$$ing match at all but some schools taken by the nBE in this past round do not own their markets and not by a long shot. Same goes for many schools being talked about for the new Alliance. Makes me think that there must at least be some tv value to just exist in a large market.

You don't have to 'own' the market to be a big draw.

FORBES MAGAZINE ran a great story on a particular nBe addition and their place in their market. The nBe will be fine. Names like Memphis and Houston have cred in their markets. And they've written significant chapters in collegiate sports history, might I add. So far, the Alliance teams I've heard mentioned are much further down the list of options for sports fans in their markets (historically). UNT for example...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/sportsmoney/...f-houston/

So it's all about having a presence and a draw in the market? Does your presence only count if you're physically located in the market?

Good article...

I think things are heading toward a lose alliance where the two leagues retain separate identities but play each other in a championship game and a preseason men's basketball tournament.

The way this could work is have both the MWC and CUSA expand to 12 with a 9th crossover game in football and a preseason basketball tourney.

MWC
East: Hawaii, San Jose, Fresno, Nevada, UNLV, Utah State
West: Wyoming, Colorado State, AFA, UNM, UTEP, UTSA

CUSA
West: Rice, North Texas, Tulsa, Tulane, La Tech, Ark State
East: So Miss, UAB, Marshall, Charlotte, East Caro, FIU

Each conference would have a championship game and then the winner would advance to a play-in game one week after the championship season.

A 24 team model where both conference retain independence but have a play-in game is the closest path to a mini-playoff.

I still think the 2 conference should remain separate and add whom ever they want to get to 10 or 12. Beyond that it gets questionable whether there is any financial justification for the additional members. If they merge, 16 is more then sufficient (24 will be a disaster). It will eventually break up just like the old WAC did when they went to 16, forming 2 conferences (the WAC & Mtn West). History repeats itself, proving that some just never learn from past mistakes).

(03-31-2012 08:39 PM)Louis Kitton Wrote:  Good article...

I think things are heading toward a lose alliance where the two leagues retain separate identities but play each other in a championship game and a preseason men's basketball tournament.

The way this could work is have both the MWC and CUSA expand to 12 with a 9th crossover game in football and a preseason basketball tourney.

MWC
East: Hawaii, San Jose, Fresno, Nevada, UNLV, Utah State
West: Wyoming, Colorado State, AFA, UNM, UTEP, UTSA

CUSA
West: Rice, North Texas, Tulsa, Tulane, La Tech, Ark State
East: So Miss, UAB, Marshall, Charlotte, East Caro, FIU

Each conference would have a championship game and then the winner would advance to a play-in game one week after the championship season.

A 24 team model where both conference retain independence but have a play-in game is the closest path to a mini-playoff.

That's a semi-final situation- and don't think that's going to get approved by the NCAA.

(03-31-2012 11:42 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(03-31-2012 08:39 PM)Louis Kitton Wrote:  Good article...

I think things are heading toward a lose alliance where the two leagues retain separate identities but play each other in a championship game and a preseason men's basketball tournament.

The way this could work is have both the MWC and CUSA expand to 12 with a 9th crossover game in football and a preseason basketball tourney.

MWC
East: Hawaii, San Jose, Fresno, Nevada, UNLV, Utah State
West: Wyoming, Colorado State, AFA, UNM, UTEP, UTSA

CUSA
West: Rice, North Texas, Tulsa, Tulane, La Tech, Ark State
East: So Miss, UAB, Marshall, Charlotte, East Caro, FIU

Each conference would have a championship game and then the winner would advance to a play-in game one week after the championship season.

A 24 team model where both conference retain independence but have a play-in game is the closest path to a mini-playoff.

That's a semi-final situation- and don't think that's going to get approved by the NCAA.

More likely is an MWC-CUSA bowl alliance, with the MWC and CUSA champs meeting in a bowl game if neither gets a BCS/major bowl/playoff bid, and a bowl-sharing arrangement, like the Big East and Notre Dame have. (The bowl would have the ability to select any eligible MWC or C-USA team.)