According to yesterday's Las Vegas Review Journal (article titled "Proposed MWC Merger Still Alive" - link not working):

"Another industry source - not the same one responsible for the CBSSports.com story - said the MWC-Conference USA amalgamation is seeking a financial handshake from TV partners Fox, CBS and NBC that would pay members around $2 million per year, or about $1 million more than they now receive."

There is a meltdown over this on the CUSA board, as it is seen that the $2M is not enough when considering travel costs, etc. Also, if this $2M figure is correct for all of the perceived inventory that can be sold, can you just imagine how little a stand alone CUSA will make given the members its lost. They are currently grossing $1.25M per school, but that was before the departures. With the departures, you are probably looking at $750K per school.

(04-20-2012 11:31 AM)bluephi1914 Wrote:  According to yesterday's Las Vegas Review Journal (article titled "Proposed MWC Merger Still Alive" - link not working):

"Another industry source - not the same one responsible for the CBSSports.com story - said the MWC-Conference USA amalgamation is seeking a financial handshake from TV partners Fox, CBS and NBC that would pay members around $2 million per year, or about $1 million more than they now receive."

There is a meltdown over this on the CUSA board, as it is seen that the $2M is not enough when considering travel costs, etc. Also, if this $2M figure is correct for all of the perceived inventory that can be sold, can you just imagine how little a stand alone CUSA will make given the members its lost. They are currently grossing $1.25M per school, but that was before the departures. With the departures, you are probably looking at $750K per school.

That's still a lot more than the Belt receives.

(04-20-2012 11:31 AM)bluephi1914 Wrote:  According to yesterday's Las Vegas Review Journal (article titled "Proposed MWC Merger Still Alive" - link not working):

"Another industry source - not the same one responsible for the CBSSports.com story - said the MWC-Conference USA amalgamation is seeking a financial handshake from TV partners Fox, CBS and NBC that would pay members around $2 million per year, or about $1 million more than they now receive."

There is a meltdown over this on the CUSA board, as it is seen that the $2M is not enough when considering travel costs, etc. Also, if this $2M figure is correct for all of the perceived inventory that can be sold, can you just imagine how little a stand alone CUSA will make given the members its lost. They are currently grossing $1.25M per school, but that was before the departures. With the departures, you are probably looking at $750K per school.

They will keep the Dallas market with UNT. They keep the Houston market with Rice, they keep the Florida market with FIU, they can pick up MTSU to replace Memphis. Add San Antonio market and they may still get an increase in TV revenue.

(theoretically speaking).

So if they would double their current $1M HOW is revenue actually going to be less?

If C-USA schools are playing predominantly C-USA schools and MWC schools are predominantly playing MWC schools you are keeping traveling expenses down. I doubt anyone in the conference would agree to scheduling that would require them making multiple cross-country trips each season.

And the schools that left the MWC and C-USA are leaving behind their basketball money, so that wouldn't cause any decrease in team payouts, either.

(04-20-2012 11:38 AM)T_Won1 Wrote:  

(04-20-2012 11:31 AM)bluephi1914 Wrote:  According to yesterday's Las Vegas Review Journal (article titled "Proposed MWC Merger Still Alive" - link not working):

"Another industry source - not the same one responsible for the CBSSports.com story - said the MWC-Conference USA amalgamation is seeking a financial handshake from TV partners Fox, CBS and NBC that would pay members around $2 million per year, or about $1 million more than they now receive."

There is a meltdown over this on the CUSA board, as it is seen that the $2M is not enough when considering travel costs, etc. Also, if this $2M figure is correct for all of the perceived inventory that can be sold, can you just imagine how little a stand alone CUSA will make given the members its lost. They are currently grossing $1.25M per school, but that was before the departures. With the departures, you are probably looking at $750K per school.

They will keep the Dallas market with UNT. They keep the Houston market with Rice, they keep the Florida market with FIU, they can pick up MTSU to replace Memphis. Add San Antonio market and they may still get an increase in TV revenue.

(theoretically speaking).

Sorry, but just pointing to teams within a market does not bring about revenue increases. You must show market penetration. Rice's market penetration is not that of Houston. UNT's is not that of SMU.

(04-20-2012 11:51 AM)bluephi1914 Wrote:  

(04-20-2012 11:38 AM)T_Won1 Wrote:  

(04-20-2012 11:31 AM)bluephi1914 Wrote:  According to yesterday's Las Vegas Review Journal (article titled "Proposed MWC Merger Still Alive" - link not working):

"Another industry source - not the same one responsible for the CBSSports.com story - said the MWC-Conference USA amalgamation is seeking a financial handshake from TV partners Fox, CBS and NBC that would pay members around $2 million per year, or about $1 million more than they now receive."

There is a meltdown over this on the CUSA board, as it is seen that the $2M is not enough when considering travel costs, etc. Also, if this $2M figure is correct for all of the perceived inventory that can be sold, can you just imagine how little a stand alone CUSA will make given the members its lost. They are currently grossing $1.25M per school, but that was before the departures. With the departures, you are probably looking at $750K per school.

They will keep the Dallas market with UNT. They keep the Houston market with Rice, they keep the Florida market with FIU, they can pick up MTSU to replace Memphis. Add San Antonio market and they may still get an increase in TV revenue.

(theoretically speaking).

Sorry, but just pointing to teams within a market does not bring about revenue increases. You must show market penetration. Rice's market penetration is not that of Houston. UNT's is not that of SMU.

Market penetration doesn't matter nearly as much as you think. Cable subscribers in the area is the most important number, the people will be paying for the content regardless of if they're actually watching it or not.

(04-20-2012 11:54 AM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  

(04-20-2012 11:51 AM)bluephi1914 Wrote:  

(04-20-2012 11:38 AM)T_Won1 Wrote:  

(04-20-2012 11:31 AM)bluephi1914 Wrote:  According to yesterday's Las Vegas Review Journal (article titled "Proposed MWC Merger Still Alive" - link not working):

"Another industry source - not the same one responsible for the CBSSports.com story - said the MWC-Conference USA amalgamation is seeking a financial handshake from TV partners Fox, CBS and NBC that would pay members around $2 million per year, or about $1 million more than they now receive."

There is a meltdown over this on the CUSA board, as it is seen that the $2M is not enough when considering travel costs, etc. Also, if this $2M figure is correct for all of the perceived inventory that can be sold, can you just imagine how little a stand alone CUSA will make given the members its lost. They are currently grossing $1.25M per school, but that was before the departures. With the departures, you are probably looking at $750K per school.

They will keep the Dallas market with UNT. They keep the Houston market with Rice, they keep the Florida market with FIU, they can pick up MTSU to replace Memphis. Add San Antonio market and they may still get an increase in TV revenue.

(theoretically speaking).

Sorry, but just pointing to teams within a market does not bring about revenue increases. You must show market penetration. Rice's market penetration is not that of Houston. UNT's is not that of SMU.

Market penetration doesn't matter nearly as much as you think. Cable subscribers in the area is the most important number, the people will be paying for the content regardless of if they're actually watching it or not.

That's the theory, I'll wait and see if it's true or not. The BE is banking on it, and from the sounds of it C-USA/alliance/cluster will be do.

With those numbers it seems like the smart play for both conferences is to wait a couple of years and collect the majority of their exit fee/NCAA money and then ally with each other for the TV deal.

Makes you wonder what we could get if we lose nobody and add UTSA and/or TX State.

(04-20-2012 12:12 PM)panama Wrote:  Makes you wonder what we could get if we lose nobody and add UTSA and/or TX State.

Good luck with that.

(04-20-2012 11:54 AM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  

(04-20-2012 11:51 AM)bluephi1914 Wrote:  

(04-20-2012 11:38 AM)T_Won1 Wrote:  

(04-20-2012 11:31 AM)bluephi1914 Wrote:  According to yesterday's Las Vegas Review Journal (article titled "Proposed MWC Merger Still Alive" - link not working):

"Another industry source - not the same one responsible for the CBSSports.com story - said the MWC-Conference USA amalgamation is seeking a financial handshake from TV partners Fox, CBS and NBC that would pay members around $2 million per year, or about $1 million more than they now receive."

There is a meltdown over this on the CUSA board, as it is seen that the $2M is not enough when considering travel costs, etc. Also, if this $2M figure is correct for all of the perceived inventory that can be sold, can you just imagine how little a stand alone CUSA will make given the members its lost. They are currently grossing $1.25M per school, but that was before the departures. With the departures, you are probably looking at $750K per school.

They will keep the Dallas market with UNT. They keep the Houston market with Rice, they keep the Florida market with FIU, they can pick up MTSU to replace Memphis. Add San Antonio market and they may still get an increase in TV revenue.

(theoretically speaking).

Sorry, but just pointing to teams within a market does not bring about revenue increases. You must show market penetration. Rice's market penetration is not that of Houston. UNT's is not that of SMU.

Market penetration doesn't matter nearly as much as you think. Cable subscribers in the area is the most important number, the people will be paying for the content regardless of if they're actually watching it or not.

I understand what you are saying but the question will be does the new product (school) get you viewers? For example, the SBC has added GSU. Now that gets the SBC in the Atlanta market. However, no one here is going to say that GSU is going to outdraw GA Tech or UGA so the provider (Fox, ESPN, Comcast, Cox, etc) are not going to pay nearly as much. Yes, it is a foot in the door but not something that will increase the coffers that much.

I agree that they are looking at the number of subscriptions but they are also placing a value on what the local school will provide. Regardless of our own perceptions about our schools and about our conference (as well as CUSA and WAC fans) those providers are taking a long, hard look at what will be left in those conferences and wondering just how much money they can make from a ECU vs Memphis game or a NT vs Troy game.

Just my opinion but I don't think reality has set in with CUSA and WAC fans. Their product has been seriously depleted. Their best has been siphoned off. This alliance is a desparate attempt to create some sort of "super conference" that really won't provide much of anything except some dysfunctional conglomeration of teams. Instead of creating two regional conferences that could field some decent teams, they are just looking to make one giant mess.. Then again, everyone has an opinion, that is just mine.

(04-20-2012 12:50 PM)InjunJohn Wrote:  

(04-20-2012 11:54 AM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  

(04-20-2012 11:51 AM)bluephi1914 Wrote:  

(04-20-2012 11:38 AM)T_Won1 Wrote:  

(04-20-2012 11:31 AM)bluephi1914 Wrote:  According to yesterday's Las Vegas Review Journal (article titled "Proposed MWC Merger Still Alive" - link not working):

"Another industry source - not the same one responsible for the CBSSports.com story - said the MWC-Conference USA amalgamation is seeking a financial handshake from TV partners Fox, CBS and NBC that would pay members around $2 million per year, or about $1 million more than they now receive."

There is a meltdown over this on the CUSA board, as it is seen that the $2M is not enough when considering travel costs, etc. Also, if this $2M figure is correct for all of the perceived inventory that can be sold, can you just imagine how little a stand alone CUSA will make given the members its lost. They are currently grossing $1.25M per school, but that was before the departures. With the departures, you are probably looking at $750K per school.

They will keep the Dallas market with UNT. They keep the Houston market with Rice, they keep the Florida market with FIU, they can pick up MTSU to replace Memphis. Add San Antonio market and they may still get an increase in TV revenue.

(theoretically speaking).

Sorry, but just pointing to teams within a market does not bring about revenue increases. You must show market penetration. Rice's market penetration is not that of Houston. UNT's is not that of SMU.

Market penetration doesn't matter nearly as much as you think. Cable subscribers in the area is the most important number, the people will be paying for the content regardless of if they're actually watching it or not.

I understand what you are saying but the question will be does the new product (school) get you viewers? For example, the SBC has added GSU. Now that gets the SBC in the Atlanta market. However, no one here is going to say that GSU is going to outdraw GA Tech or UGA so the provider (Fox, ESPN, Comcast, Cox, etc) are not going to pay nearly as much. Yes, it is a foot in the door but not something that will increase the coffers that much.

I agree that they are looking at the number of subscriptions but they are also placing a value on what the local school will provide. Regardless of our own perceptions about our schools and about our conference (as well as CUSA and WAC fans) those providers are taking a long, hard look at what will be left in those conferences and wondering just how much money they can make from a ECU vs Memphis game or a NT vs Troy game.

Just my opinion but I don't think reality has set in with CUSA and WAC fans. Their product has been seriously depleted. Their best has been siphoned off. This alliance is a desparate attempt to create some sort of "super conference" that really won't provide much of anything except some dysfunctional conglomeration of teams. Instead of creating two regional conferences that could field some decent teams, they are just looking to make one giant mess.. Then again, everyone has an opinion, that is just mine.

Define best. USM is the best program in the history of C-USA and last I checked they are still here. ECU has won as many titles as any departing member had and has the largest fan base, we're still here. Tulsa I believe has the best record since the new C-USA started in football and they are still here.

(04-20-2012 12:55 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(04-20-2012 12:50 PM)InjunJohn Wrote:  

(04-20-2012 11:54 AM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  

(04-20-2012 11:51 AM)bluephi1914 Wrote:  

(04-20-2012 11:38 AM)T_Won1 Wrote:  They will keep the Dallas market with UNT. They keep the Houston market with Rice, they keep the Florida market with FIU, they can pick up MTSU to replace Memphis. Add San Antonio market and they may still get an increase in TV revenue.

(theoretically speaking).

Sorry, but just pointing to teams within a market does not bring about revenue increases. You must show market penetration. Rice's market penetration is not that of Houston. UNT's is not that of SMU.

Market penetration doesn't matter nearly as much as you think. Cable subscribers in the area is the most important number, the people will be paying for the content regardless of if they're actually watching it or not.

I understand what you are saying but the question will be does the new product (school) get you viewers? For example, the SBC has added GSU. Now that gets the SBC in the Atlanta market. However, no one here is going to say that GSU is going to outdraw GA Tech or UGA so the provider (Fox, ESPN, Comcast, Cox, etc) are not going to pay nearly as much. Yes, it is a foot in the door but not something that will increase the coffers that much.

I agree that they are looking at the number of subscriptions but they are also placing a value on what the local school will provide. Regardless of our own perceptions about our schools and about our conference (as well as CUSA and WAC fans) those providers are taking a long, hard look at what will be left in those conferences and wondering just how much money they can make from a ECU vs Memphis game or a NT vs Troy game.

Just my opinion but I don't think reality has set in with CUSA and WAC fans. Their product has been seriously depleted. Their best has been siphoned off. This alliance is a desparate attempt to create some sort of "super conference" that really won't provide much of anything except some dysfunctional conglomeration of teams. Instead of creating two regional conferences that could field some decent teams, they are just looking to make one giant mess.. Then again, everyone has an opinion, that is just mine.

Define best. USM is the best program in the history of C-USA and last I checked they are still here. ECU has won as many titles as any departing member had and has the largest fan base, we're still here. Tulsa I believe has the best record since the new C-USA started in football and they are still here.

USM is a good team and yes they are still there. However, with the exception of a very nice year last year, they were a 7-8 win team. ECU is another very nice team and very consistent. However, look at what you are losing. Houston: Bigger market. Wins over the last 5 years, 13, 5, 10, 8, and 8. One down year but consistently better than USM. UCF: generally at the top of CUSA. SMU: Bigger market. Finally worked its way up and getting 8 wins a year. Memphis: Well, you are losing the biggest name in basketball (I will give you that on football).

There are still some good teams in CUSA. But you have to admit that the overall quality of the conference has been hammered by losing Houston, UCF and SMU (along with big markets).

(04-20-2012 01:22 PM)InjunJohn Wrote:  

(04-20-2012 12:55 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(04-20-2012 12:50 PM)InjunJohn Wrote:  

(04-20-2012 11:54 AM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  

(04-20-2012 11:51 AM)bluephi1914 Wrote:  Sorry, but just pointing to teams within a market does not bring about revenue increases. You must show market penetration. Rice's market penetration is not that of Houston. UNT's is not that of SMU.

Market penetration doesn't matter nearly as much as you think. Cable subscribers in the area is the most important number, the people will be paying for the content regardless of if they're actually watching it or not.

I understand what you are saying but the question will be does the new product (school) get you viewers? For example, the SBC has added GSU. Now that gets the SBC in the Atlanta market. However, no one here is going to say that GSU is going to outdraw GA Tech or UGA so the provider (Fox, ESPN, Comcast, Cox, etc) are not going to pay nearly as much. Yes, it is a foot in the door but not something that will increase the coffers that much.

I agree that they are looking at the number of subscriptions but they are also placing a value on what the local school will provide. Regardless of our own perceptions about our schools and about our conference (as well as CUSA and WAC fans) those providers are taking a long, hard look at what will be left in those conferences and wondering just how much money they can make from a ECU vs Memphis game or a NT vs Troy game.

Just my opinion but I don't think reality has set in with CUSA and WAC fans. Their product has been seriously depleted. Their best has been siphoned off. This alliance is a desparate attempt to create some sort of "super conference" that really won't provide much of anything except some dysfunctional conglomeration of teams. Instead of creating two regional conferences that could field some decent teams, they are just looking to make one giant mess.. Then again, everyone has an opinion, that is just mine.

Define best. USM is the best program in the history of C-USA and last I checked they are still here. ECU has won as many titles as any departing member had and has the largest fan base, we're still here. Tulsa I believe has the best record since the new C-USA started in football and they are still here.

USM is a good team and yes they are still there. However, with the exception of a very nice year last year, they were a 7-8 win team. ECU is another very nice team and very consistent. However, look at what you are losing. Houston: Bigger market. Wins over the last 5 years, 13, 5, 10, 8, and 8. One down year but consistently better than USM. UCF: generally at the top of CUSA. SMU: Bigger market. Finally worked its way up and getting 8 wins a year. Memphis: Well, you are losing the biggest name in basketball (I will give you that on football).

There are still some good teams in CUSA. But you have to admit that the overall quality of the conference has been hammered by losing Houston, UCF and SMU (along with big markets).

Houston is not consistently better than USM, and in their magical year with their all time great QB they got smashed on their home field for the championship by USM. SMU isn't some sort of power. UCF is the most up and down program in the league, and Memphis is a dumpster fire in football. I'm not debating we lost markets, but if we are just debating on the field I'll take ECU, USM, and Tulsa over Houston, UCF, and SMU. There's a difference in saying we lost our best markets and lost our best programs. We lost our best markets, and a few of our better programs, but not all our of best by any means.

(04-20-2012 01:27 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(04-20-2012 01:22 PM)InjunJohn Wrote:  

(04-20-2012 12:55 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(04-20-2012 12:50 PM)InjunJohn Wrote:  

(04-20-2012 11:54 AM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  Market penetration doesn't matter nearly as much as you think. Cable subscribers in the area is the most important number, the people will be paying for the content regardless of if they're actually watching it or not.

I understand what you are saying but the question will be does the new product (school) get you viewers? For example, the SBC has added GSU. Now that gets the SBC in the Atlanta market. However, no one here is going to say that GSU is going to outdraw GA Tech or UGA so the provider (Fox, ESPN, Comcast, Cox, etc) are not going to pay nearly as much. Yes, it is a foot in the door but not something that will increase the coffers that much.

I agree that they are looking at the number of subscriptions but they are also placing a value on what the local school will provide. Regardless of our own perceptions about our schools and about our conference (as well as CUSA and WAC fans) those providers are taking a long, hard look at what will be left in those conferences and wondering just how much money they can make from a ECU vs Memphis game or a NT vs Troy game.

Just my opinion but I don't think reality has set in with CUSA and WAC fans. Their product has been seriously depleted. Their best has been siphoned off. This alliance is a desparate attempt to create some sort of "super conference" that really won't provide much of anything except some dysfunctional conglomeration of teams. Instead of creating two regional conferences that could field some decent teams, they are just looking to make one giant mess.. Then again, everyone has an opinion, that is just mine.

Define best. USM is the best program in the history of C-USA and last I checked they are still here. ECU has won as many titles as any departing member had and has the largest fan base, we're still here. Tulsa I believe has the best record since the new C-USA started in football and they are still here.

USM is a good team and yes they are still there. However, with the exception of a very nice year last year, they were a 7-8 win team. ECU is another very nice team and very consistent. However, look at what you are losing. Houston: Bigger market. Wins over the last 5 years, 13, 5, 10, 8, and 8. One down year but consistently better than USM. UCF: generally at the top of CUSA. SMU: Bigger market. Finally worked its way up and getting 8 wins a year. Memphis: Well, you are losing the biggest name in basketball (I will give you that on football).

There are still some good teams in CUSA. But you have to admit that the overall quality of the conference has been hammered by losing Houston, UCF and SMU (along with big markets).

Houston is not consistently better than USM, and in their magical year with their all time great QB they got smashed on their home field for the championship by USM. SMU isn't some sort of power. UCF is the most up and down program in the league, and Memphis is a dumpster fire in football. I'm not debating we lost markets, but if we are just debating on the field I'll take ECU, USM, and Tulsa over Houston, UCF, and SMU. There's a difference in saying we lost our best markets and lost our best programs. We lost our best markets, and a few of our better programs, but not all our of best by any means.

I will give you that you still have some nice teams left. Go back and re-read my response to you. And yes, the MWC was probably hurt the worst of the two. But do not downplay how good the teams are that are leaving. Since SMU got June Jones, they have turned into a regular Bowl team with 8 wins, 7 wins, and 8 wins over the past three years. Houston had a bad year in 2010 but has consistently out performed USM by at least 1 victory per season over the last 5 years, the championship game not withstanding. UCF has been up and down but Tulsa has also dropped some, even having a 5 win season in 2009.

Again, I said it before and I will say it again, there are some good programs left in CUSA but you cannot deny that you have been hit hard by what you are losing.

UNT is SBC's memphis. One of best in conference in basketball horrible in Football. Big market but uninvolved in the big market. Ole miss controlls the memphis market dont fool yourself . Same issue for UNT ..Texas and TCU along with SMU controll the dallas market not UNT..

(04-20-2012 04:32 PM)RustonCAT Wrote:  UNT is SBC's memphis. One of best in conference in basketball horrible in Football. Big market but uninvolved in the big market. Ole miss controlls the memphis market dont fool yourself . Same issue for UNT ..Texas and TCU along with SMU controll the dallas market not UNT..

SMU controls nothing. Their football attendance was horrible a long with Bball.

(04-20-2012 04:52 PM)goherd17 Wrote:  

(04-20-2012 04:32 PM)RustonCAT Wrote:  UNT is SBC's memphis. One of best in conference in basketball horrible in Football. Big market but uninvolved in the big market. Ole miss controlls the memphis market dont fool yourself . Same issue for UNT ..Texas and TCU along with SMU controll the dallas market not UNT..

SMU controls nothing. Their football attendance was horrible a long with Bball.

They "SMU" have more pull than UNT does.

Do you really think that just building a new stadium fills it up(UNT). Do you really think that just being in a big market gets you attention. NO..Its earned. Look at most SEC schools..Ole miss,Miss St, Arkansas, Florida, Auburn , LSU are all in cities that dont have big markets. Baton Rouge is a ok market but close to NO . ALabama is in tuscaloosa whick is mayby 200k ppl..these stadiums can almost hold the cities population

You Earn respect by winning. A Decent market team with winning record will outdo a big market team with decent to horrible record..

FIU would be a good addition why, because they are building on success. ASU is building on success, MTSU is building on some success..UNT is throwing money at the "losing" bug hoping to beat it.

Why will C-USA enjoy the Dallas and Miami markets with UNT and FIU when we don't currently? That view makes no sense.